NEWS: Iran Should Support The Insurgents

My point is that our administration's actions are just as related to current events as anyone else's. You say Bush's efforts to isolate Iran have caused a justifiable negative reaction the the US, I say Iran's nuclear program and support of terrorists in the region caused our justifiable isolation of Iran.
I don't understand why people feel like the actions the administration takes are completely sterile, but the action any anti-US nation takes are justified by the pressure they're under.
It's the exact same thing
Of course Iran supports insurgents in Iraq, just like we supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. These things are all cyclical and no actions are without cause and reason. The only difference is which side you'd like to see win.

I'm certainly not arguing that.

And frankly, I get as frustrated with that as anyone - it denies agency to our antagonists and paints them as reactionary ciphers.

My contention, rather, is that the Bush administration has a crusader mentality that has led and is continuing to lead it to overstate potential threats and assume counterproductively bellicose postures in its attempts at foreign-policy implementation.

Rather a different thing.

I know you didn't just say I want the terrorists to win.

That may well remain true of the average Shahab in the street. But my understanding is that positive attitudes formerly extended even to our government.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

But no, I wasn't trying to imply that.

Well it is pretty obvious how my views are on an issue like this.World peace is an impossibility, primarily it would be like a sports competition where no one competed. Arguments are a natural occurrence between two people, we are arguing at the moment "debating". My point by saying this is wars are basically international arguements, on top of that they have always been good for the economy of the dominant military power. Wars always create technological advancement as well. I am not saying I enjoy it, it is completely opposite, I hate seeing my friends die. However it is inevitable, you as one individual cannot change it or obviously do not want to exert the effort to change it. I have seen that the bulk of people will whine and complain about things they are not satisfied with, but they will not lift one lousy finger to change it. If we go to war with Iran, oh well for you it is bad, for me it means I will have a job to do. It is really kind of sad now that my job is to do what people whine and complain about non stop, I can longer understand how any one can think like this. Even worse I used to be just like this guy, I guess I grew up as a person and decided that there were more important things to do than whine and complain about things that I couldn't or wouldn't change.

Does it matter if Iran can "win"?
Even if they aren't a direct threat (thanks, CIA!) to the US, they have, and continue to, support groups like the PLO, Hizbullah, and now the insurgency in Iraq

DrStinkypants said:

Zarth said:

DrStinkypants said:
Of course Iran supports insurgents in Iraq, just like we supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. These things are all cyclical and no actions are without cause and reason. The only difference is which side you'd like to see win.

I know you didn't just say I want the terrorists to win.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

But no, I wasn't trying to imply that.

Touché.

You're not considering the 51st state.

Zero countries. Zero borders. Zero wars. Only the bloated politicos profit from all this silly late-night game of drunken addled Stratego. Oh sure, wiser heads could win, win out on the wise front, as opposed to the dullard dill flanking moves front, laughable all. It's just the case in the United States right now that powerful people are making money from these wars, just like they intended. They want the wars to continue and if your child or brother, sis, or mate comes home in a box, unheralded since they will not allow that to be made public, then they are still counting their profits - hoarding them like giddy soul-less uncles of Death, This may seem overstated. I hope to all that matters that they are NOT counting the dollars flowing to them in calculations of Americans worth lettng die, or sending to die. I hope that. I doubt it though. And I will mention the citizens of Iraq who never ever did anything but sit and wait for some honest helping hand. They didn't get one. Now they shoot us and we shoot them and STILL the money flows to the, in America, powerful (Saudis are Americans, okay?) few people who the original American Revolution sought to chill out.

In America today, the news is worthless. I hear more on any given day by riding in a cab driven by an immigrant who is, in almost every case, tuned into the BBC.

enuff said

The BBC, retreat for "enlightened" americans. Ugh, If Britian didn't draw lines in the sand after WWI in the first place Iraq wouldn't even exist. I wonder if they agree with the BBC's journalistic nuetrality in Northern Ireland.Read my post I still think it makes the most sense so far-

I hearth zarth.

Burn, Zarth. BURN!

"quite the debater weekly"?

Hmmm... looks like you went towards the right.. Congratulations! You're already rambling like a neo-con too.

Make it so, Number One.

Master Debaters...

I wouldn't call Lieberman a lapdog, given his history.

Regardless of the circumstances, arming my enemy makes you my enemy and earns you my enimity. Also, I have much to say on the precocious preface of the piper, Peter, and the picking of pecks of pickled peppers.

Ah, the old might makes right argument.

I'm lovin' it.

Well... that's sorta true. But since the election, he's been Blair-a-fied. He should change his (I-CT) to (N-CT).

Given his history of unquestioningly supporting the Bush Administration's Iraq War policy, I'd say "lapdog" is quite an accurate description of the Joementum.

Agreed.