U.S. Funds Attacks in Iran

[ScottSA]

The object of war is to win, not to arrive at the end of it with the best claim to having not fought it. I understand that you don't want the US to win, so the best way to avoid that outcome is to insist that it fight against a streetfighter with one hand tied behind its back and the other confined by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Geez...what a twisted way of looking at the world you have...

Quite likely it never occurred to you to question, if and why they really have to fight (and win - or lose) that war there, x thousand miles from their mainland. That omission on your part can be either plain dumb, or, really twisted.

But a minute ago you were arguing about the WAY the war is fought, with an eye to the morality of the methods. Now you're arguing an entirely different point; that the war shouldn't be fought at all. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Unless of course you're arguing that it would be ok to win the war if the war was just, but it should be lost because in your view it's not just.

This is not an ommission, it's a commission on your part, and it's so dumb you'd be laughed out of a debate if you used it. Oh, you DID use it.

[M.Dancer]

I suggest to replace guesswork with a due process. Long reaching conclusions without proper substantiation already proved wrong (and a very expensive wrong at that) in the previous and not so old instance. The avenues are available: ICJ, Security Council. Why don't this administration bring their accusations to these bodies, and prove them following due process? Their fanning hot air only makes me think that perhaps their evidence record may be too thin to be considered seriously. Maybe of the same nature as their (in)famous WMD file on Iraq?

Seriously, you think that Iran should be charged with something? What? Having an aggresive foreign policy? And how (pretending that what they are doing is some legally actionable) do we get them to stop?

Give them a ticket?

[myata]

But a minute ago you were arguing about the WAY the war is fought, with an eye to the morality of the methods. Now you're arguing an entirely different point; that the war shouldn't be fought at all. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Unless of course you're arguing that it would be ok to win the war if the war was just, but it should be lost because in your view it's not just.

You're quite obviously confused withing three (no two) step logical sequence.

1) You should not fight in a war unless you have to (and if and when you have to, you'll know it - there would be no need to suck non existing justifications out of a thumb).

2) If you do fight in such a war, you should not be complaining about the other party not respecting your rules. You had a choice to not be there, and chose otherwise. All bets are off.

This is not an ommission, it's a commission on your part, and it's so dumb you'd be laughed out of a debate if you used it. Oh, you DID use it.

Unfortunately, scientific words won't add anything to an argument that does not exist.

[myata]

Seriously, you think that Iran should be charged with something? What? Having an aggresive foreign policy? And how (pretending that what they are doing is some legally actionable) do we get them to stop?

Give them a ticket?

I guess it's an irony. Yes it's hard to stop someone who's doing exact same thing as us, by accusing them of being in the wrong.

[M.Dancer]

Seriously, you think that Iran should be charged with something? What? Having an aggresive foreign policy? And how (pretending that what they are doing is some legally actionable) do we get them to stop?

Give them a ticket?

I guess it's an irony. Yes it's hard to stop someone who's doing exact same thing as us, by accusing them of being in the wrong.

Whether it's only hard or impossible to stop them is another question. But in the world of real politics, giving aid to your enemies enemies has a long tradition and the way to counter that is old too. Generally the method is to convey to the antagonist that the risks are greater than the benefits.

[myata]

But in the world of real politics, giving aid to your enemies enemies has a long tradition and the way to counter that is old too. Generally the method is to convey to the antagonist that the risks are greater than the benefits.

I'm not sure whether it's actually conveying any message or just helping the regime by strengthening their raison d'etre (that is to resist american domination in the region) and firing up anti-american sentiment.

It should be also be questioned, whether the "rules of real politics", developed in the post colonial cold war era are still valid (that is to say, practical) in this age?

American meddling already gave them 9/11 and a few smaller attacks. Could it have been "cheaper" in the long run to just have a simple trade based relationships with whoever happens to rule in the region, no matter their ideological / political and so on, orientation?

[M.Dancer]

But in the world of real politics, giving aid to your enemies enemies has a long tradition and the way to counter that is old too. Generally the method is to convey to the antagonist that the risks are greater than the benefits.

I'm not sure whether it's actually conveying any message or just helping the regime by strengthening their raison d'etre (that is to resist american domination in the region) and firing up anti-american sentiment.

It should be also be questioned, whether the "rules of real politics", developed in the post colonial cold war era are still valid (that is to say, practical) in this age?

American meddling already gave them 9/11 and a few smaller attacks. Could it have been "cheaper" in the long run to just have a simple trade based relationships with whoever happens to rule in the region, no matter their ideological / political and so on, orientation?

It's a lot older than post colonial.....Britain was aiding Dutch Separarists fighting the Spanish occupation as Spain aiding the Irish.....

[M.Dancer]

American meddling already gave them 9/11 and a few smaller attacks.

Pardon? Care to elaborate on the long term goal of Al Qaeda?

[ScottSA]

But a minute ago you were arguing about the WAY the war is fought, with an eye to the morality of the methods. Now you're arguing an entirely different point; that the war shouldn't be fought at all. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Unless of course you're arguing that it would be ok to win the war if the war was just, but it should be lost because in your view it's not just.

You're quite obviously confused withing three (no two) step logical sequence.

1) You should not fight in a war unless you have to (and if and when you have to, you'll know it - there would be no need to suck non existing justifications out of a thumb).

2) If you do fight in such a war, you should not be complaining about the other party not respecting your rules. You had a choice to not be there, and chose otherwise. All bets are off.

I think you're confused as to which debate you're bumbling around in, never mind the points of logic. You're the one who has been arguing that the US should be restrained in its actions so as not to emulate the enemy, but you seem to have lost the thread of the argument and are now arguing the opposite. I'm not the one complaining about not following the rules. You are. Look at the title and it may jog your memory.

[myata]

Pardon? Care to elaborate on the long term goal of Al Qaeda?

I havent studied the subject, so cannot speculate. However, it doesn't take a PhD to figure out that if one keeps pissing off a bunch of people, especially in that particular manner when they have nowhere to go (i.e. in their own land), or could resist in any meaningful way (because one acts by proxy, or with hugely superior military force), sooner or later one is bound to get something in return. With response in proportion to the pressure. A law of human nature as simple as Newton's 3rd law of mechanics. And no, I'm not to blame that the world just happens to work this way. Even a chipmunk or a squirel will bite when cornered.

To Scotty: I apologise. It's obviously beyond your ability to comprehend even a simple logical sequence and I've no time at this point to lay it out for you.

[ScottSA]

Even a chipmunk or a squirel will bite when cornered.

To Scotty: I apologise. It's obviously beyond your ability to comprehend even a simple logical sequence and I've no time at this point to lay it out for you.

Yeah, don't worry about it. I'm sorry I haven't make your fallacy understandable too. I see you like to use animal analogies, so perhaps we can start by using Sesame street puppets like Big Bird tomorrow...I'm not sure the groundwork is yet laid in your mind for moving on to entire words, much less logic.

[M.Dancer]

Pardon? Care to elaborate on the long term goal of Al Qaeda?

I havent studied the subject, so cannot speculate. However, it doesn't take a PhD to figure out that if one keeps pissing off a bunch of people, especially in that particular manner when they have nowhere to go (i.e. in their own land), or could resist in any meaningful way (because one acts by proxy, or with hugely superior military force), sooner or later one is bound to get something in return. With response in proportion to the pressure. A law of human nature as simple as Newton's 3rd law of mechanics. And no, I'm not to blame that the world just happens to work this way. Even a chipmunk or a squirel will bite when cornered.

To Scotty: I apologise. It's obviously beyond your ability to comprehend even a simple logical sequence and I've no time at this point to lay it out for you.

So in otherwords you advocate the US not supporting her allies so that Bin Laden can overthrow the house of Saud? Is that the pissing off bit you mention...or are you seriously trying to foist on us some nonsense about Palestine?

[myata]

You got it right.

1. Not supporting its "allies" if they aren't wanted by their people;

2. Not plotting and conspiring against governments elected by people if they aren't doing you any harm, even if you don't happen to like them, for any reason;

And logically following from the above, yes, there must be a fair resolution to the Middle East problem. You probably wanted to explain why would you call it a "nonsense", but forgot in the last minute?"

[M.Dancer]

You got it right.

1. Not supporting its "allies" if they aren't wanted by their people;

2. Not plotting and conspiring against governments elected by people if they aren't doing you any harm, even if you don't happen to like them, for any reason;

And logically following from the above, yes, there must be a fair resolution to the Middle East problem. You probably wanted to explain why would you call it a "nonsense", but forgot in the last minute?"

What planet are we discussing?

1. Could you name this ally and the polling firm that gave this result?

2. Which government are you refering to that was elected by the people that the US has consired against that made Al Qaeda so angry?

3. The palestinians have nothing to do with Al Qaeda's motivations. They were merely tacked on as an after thought and a bone to for the useful idiots in the west to chew on.

[myata]

What planet are we discussing?

On this very planet, there's probably no other nation or government that was involved in so many places / shady operations.

If you know one, please let us know as well.

1. Could you name this ally and the polling firm that gave this result?

No, it's much simplier than that. Just stop selling arms, send military instructors and so on to oppressive regimes. People themselves will figure out what government they want to support.

2. Which government are you refering to that was elected by the people that the US has consired against that made Al Qaeda so angry?

3. The palestinians have nothing to do with Al Qaeda's motivations. They were merely tacked on as an after thought and a bone to for the useful idiots in the west to chew on.

May be, a popular government of Iran before Shah was installed by a CIA sponsored coup? Or continued one-sidedness in the palestinian conflict? As with individuals, "blowbacks" cannot be directly traced to a particular episode or event. Tension raises then spills out at unpredictable moment. There's no doubt that policies of meddling in the other peoples affairs greatly contributed to the tensions in the region.

[M.Dancer]

..........

Try to stay on topic....you said that there were reasons that 9.11 happened......it didn't happen because a Soviet ally was deposed in Iran......let's try again, you said you don't need a Phd.....

Myata

1. Not supporting its "allies" if they aren't wanted by their people;

2. Not plotting and conspiring against governments elected by people if they aren't doing you any harm, even if you don't happen to like them, for any reason;

Me

1. Could you name this ally and the polling firm that gave this result?

2. Which government are you refering to that was elected by the people that the US has consired against that made Al Qaeda so angry?

Continue...and remember, you brought up 9.11

[M.Dancer]

You probably wanted to explain why would you call it a "nonsense", but forgot in the last minute?"

Bin laden travelled all the way to afghanistan to fight the russians....if Palestine was such a pressing issue. he could have arranged a shorter trip.....

[DogOnPorch]

May be, a popular government of Iran before Shah was installed by a CIA sponsored coup?

You might want to review that statement as it is misleading. You could perhaps give us your full version of how the Shah came to be monarch and how Mossadegh came to power. That might make it clearer.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is in principle based on the establishment of peace and justice worldwide.

---Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[ScottSA]

myata is one of those who learned history from the comicbook version of the New Left Review. In this view of history, the CIA runs around "installing" regimes willy nilly, while the poor little brown folk are deemed too stupid to figure it out, and utterly powerless to overcome the mindmeld Bwana has on him.

[myata]

were reasons that 9.11 happened......it didn't happen ......let's try don't need a Phd.....

Maybe you should try to read the entire post before replying?

DogOP and ScottSA, FY highly learned info on Mossadeh in Iran: wikipedia article.

It was mentioned as just one (by no means the only one and quite likely not the most recent or obvious one) example of US meddling in the Middle East.

[M.Dancer]

were reasons that 9.11 happened......it didn't happen ......let's try don't need a Phd.....

Maybe you should try to read the entire post before replying?

DogOP and ScottSA, FY highly learned info on Mossadeh in Iran: wikipedia article.

It was mentioned as just one (by no means the only one and quite likely not the most recent or obvious one) example of US meddling in the Middle East.

Nice cop out....you should teach that one to woody.....

[myata]

Nice cop out....you should teach that one to woody.....

You probably have a lot more to contribute, just isn't coming out in a legible way. No worries, can happen to anyone.

[DogOnPorch]

DogOP and ScottSA, FY highly learned info on Mossadeh in Iran: wikipedia article.

Curious...since you're not going to go into full details for some reason...how do you think the Shah became monarch of Iran?

----------------------------------------------------------

Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.

---Joseph Stalin

[myata]

There's an article on the Shah in Wikipedia as well. Just search for "Shah of Iran". Dismission of Mussadeh and subsequent authoritarian rule of the Shah resulted in well known abuses of rights in the country.

[buffycat]

Which Shah?

Mossadeq said no to BP. He wanted to nationalize the country's resources (a big NO-NO in the days of early and present psuedofacist capitalism - hee) hence he needed to be taken out. Pretty simple - install a puppet no matter how ruthless he is! Actually the more ruthless the better, that way any kind of dissent if stifled immediately.

Now, I am certainly not advocating the current regime of Mullahs - or am I a big fan of Ahmedinejad - however I certainly haven't seen them attacking anyone lately, or destroying other's infrastructures and decimating entire populations (whether outright or by habitat destruction).

Anyways.. carry on DOP - your gate needs guarding.