Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99

 ... 484

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

DrStinkypants

DrStinkypants

Saint Paul, MN
October 2002

JUN 12, 2007 03:57 PM

Zarth said:

DrStinkypants said:

oyaji said:

wannabprnstr said:
I cannot even begin to explain how idiotoc this argument is. So you're telling Iran to go kill Americans - we deserve it? Just out of curiosity where are you from? I know it is your right here in America to state your opinion and that is a great thing about the U.S.; but, does your own homeland allow you to do the same? I know Iran wouldn't.


Of course our troops don't deserve to be killed. But we do seem to have a nasty habit of invading and occupying countries on flimsy pretexts and without any idea of what it is that we hope to accomplish (realistically) or any reasonable plan to accomplish anything. This inexorably leads to destabilization and resistance and violence directed against us. So, perhaps the real question is why the Bush Administration wants Iran and every other two-bit regional power in the middle east to go kill Americans. Bush's policies certainly have been successful in putting big fucking targets on our troops and our people.


This is true. Anti American sentiment in Iran (and elsewhere) was unheard of before George W Bush.


That's disingenuous.

You're trying, and failing, to implicitly establish a correlative claim that this administration's demonstrably unnecessary blunders in the region haven't negatively impacted the way America is perceived there. In fact, the United States was formerly viewed quite positively by the average Iranian (to be distinguished from the hard-liners and true-believers, who were and remain disproportionately powerful in the Iranian government).

After Iraq, and Bush's continual chest-thumping and sophomoric attempts to "isolate" Iran, this is very much no longer the case.

Similar trends have been occurring throughout the region generally, and with good reason.



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.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUN 12, 2007 04:11 PM

DrStinkypants said:
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


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.

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.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUN 12, 2007 04:12 PM

oyaji said:

Zarth said:
After Iraq, and Bush's continual chest-thumping and sophomoric attempts to "isolate" Iran, this is very much no longer the case.


Actually, I think that the average Iranian remains fairly pro-American (American people).


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.

DrStinkypants

DrStinkypants

Saint Paul, MN
October 2002

JUN 12, 2007 04:25 PM

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.






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

aldoushuxley

aldoushuxley

USA
November 2005

JUN 12, 2007 04:27 PM

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.

DrStinkypants

DrStinkypants

Saint Paul, MN
October 2002

JUN 12, 2007 04:31 PM

oyaji said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

DrStinkypants said:

Zarth said:

DrStinkypants said:

oyaji said:

wannabprnstr said:
I cannot even begin to explain how idiotoc this argument is. So you're telling Iran to go kill Americans - we deserve it? Just out of curiosity where are you from? I know it is your right here in America to state your opinion and that is a great thing about the U.S.; but, does your own homeland allow you to do the same? I know Iran wouldn't.


Of course our troops don't deserve to be killed. But we do seem to have a nasty habit of invading and occupying countries on flimsy pretexts and without any idea of what it is that we hope to accomplish (realistically) or any reasonable plan to accomplish anything. This inexorably leads to destabilization and resistance and violence directed against us. So, perhaps the real question is why the Bush Administration wants Iran and every other two-bit regional power in the middle east to go kill Americans. Bush's policies certainly have been successful in putting big fucking targets on our troops and our people.


This is true. Anti American sentiment in Iran (and elsewhere) was unheard of before George W Bush.


That's disingenuous.

You're trying, and failing, to implicitly establish a correlative claim that this administration's demonstrably unnecessary blunders in the region haven't negatively impacted the way America is perceived there. In fact, the United States was formerly viewed quite positively by the average Iranian (to be distinguished from the hard-liners and true-believers, who were and remain disproportionately powerful in the Iranian government).

After Iraq, and Bush's continual chest-thumping and sophomoric attempts to "isolate" Iran, this is very much no longer the case.

Similar trends have been occurring throughout the region generally, and with good reason.



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.



Jesus. Our problems with Iran are entirely of our own making. We are the ones constantly sticking our nose into the business of Iran, and everyone else in the world. Iranian agents are not infiltrating our borders and blowing shit up, are they?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Iranians can "win" against the United States? Iran poses no threat to our security. None.



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

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUN 12, 2007 04:37 PM

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.




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


Touché.

herbancowboy

herbancowboy

Houston, TX
June 2004

JUN 12, 2007 06:39 PM

oyaji said:

DrStinkypants said:
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



And if we would get the fuck out of Iraq, none of those things would be a threat, either. The PLO and Hezbullah are not threats to the security of the United States. Neither is the insurgency, really. They are a threat to our troops on the ground in Iraq. No troops on the ground, no threat at all.



You're not considering the 51st state.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
And I'm not talking Puerto Rico.

cupcake

cupcake

I'm lost
July 2002

JUN 12, 2007 06:40 PM

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

matches

matches

New Haven, CT
November 2006

JUN 12, 2007 06:46 PM

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-

_Elichrusos

_Elichrusos

Australia
November 2004

JUN 12, 2007 07:08 PM

Zarth said:

wannabprnstr said:
I cannot even begin to explain how idiotoc this argument is. So you're telling Iran to go kill Americans - we deserve it? Just out of curiosity where are you from? I know it is your right here in America to state your opinion and that is a great thing about the U.S.; but, does your own homeland allow you to do the same? I know Iran wouldn't.


That's not his argument. Although he's framed his contention for maximum offense (it's FTR, that's what he does), his basic assertion is just that's obviously in Iran's legitimate self-interest to take action when a hostile is destabilizing states on two of its borders.

This is one of the problems with international relations, is that the pursuit of self-interest can lead to conflict.

I think he's also additionally making the point that Iran's interest in Iraq is legitimate, our own was not. While his is certainly true, this is also by this point irrelevant.



I hearth zarth.

herbancowboy

herbancowboy

Houston, TX
June 2004

JUN 12, 2007 07:31 PM

_Elichrusos said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Zarth said:

wannabprnstr said:
I cannot even begin to explain how idiotoc this argument is. So you're telling Iran to go kill Americans - we deserve it? Just out of curiosity where are you from? I know it is your right here in America to state your opinion and that is a great thing about the U.S.; but, does your own homeland allow you to do the same? I know Iran wouldn't.


That's not his argument. Although he's framed his contention for maximum offense (it's FTR, that's what he does), his basic assertion is just that's obviously in Iran's legitimate self-interest to take action when a hostile is destabilizing states on two of its borders.

This is one of the problems with international relations, is that the pursuit of self-interest can lead to conflict.

I think he's also additionally making the point that Iran's interest in Iraq is legitimate, our own was not. While his is certainly true, this is also by this point irrelevant.



I hearth zarth.



Burn, Zarth. BURN!

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

JUN 12, 2007 07:35 PM

Zarth said:
I just said that, oyaji.

risingstanding said:
FTR, you should probably take your dumbshit journalist ass over to iraq and write a good followup to this article from there.
What you wrote is extremely offensive, considering all the young american troops dying there all the time. I wish Iran would could make some more profit by dealing your ass into the underground sex slave trade.


I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.



"quite the debater weekly"?

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

JUN 12, 2007 08:19 PM

aldushuxley said:
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.



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

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUN 12, 2007 08:43 PM

MrCrisp said:

Zarth said:
I just said that, oyaji.

risingstanding said:
FTR, you should probably take your dumbshit journalist ass over to iraq and write a good followup to this article from there.
What you wrote is extremely offensive, considering all the young american troops dying there all the time. I wish Iran would could make some more profit by dealing your ass into the underground sex slave trade.


I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.



"quite the debater weekly"?


Make it so, Number One.

abracadabra

abracadabra

Seattle, WA
April 2004

JUN 12, 2007 09:49 PM

Master Debaters...

iKitten

iKitten

Woodstock, GA
May 2007

JUN 12, 2007 10:04 PM

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.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUN 12, 2007 10:50 PM

freshprncebelair said:
Well, you can do that, but then you have to deal with the consequences of getting assfucked by a military superpower. Having power pretty much means you get to make the rules. Not having power means you have to abide by them.

Ah, the old might makes right argument.

I'm lovin' it. whatever

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

JUN 13, 2007 04:56 AM

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



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

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

JUN 13, 2007 06:32 AM

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



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.

DrStinkypants

DrStinkypants

Saint Paul, MN
October 2002

JUN 13, 2007 07:06 PM

oyaji said:

herbancowboy said:

oyaji said:

DrStinkypants said:
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



And if we would get the fuck out of Iraq, none of those things would be a threat, either. The PLO and Hezbullah are not threats to the security of the United States. Neither is the insurgency, really. They are a threat to our troops on the ground in Iraq. No troops on the ground, no threat at all.



You're not considering the 51st state.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
And I'm not talking Puerto Rico.



While it's somewhat offensive to refer to Israel as the "51st state," Israel's problems are nonetheless not my problems.



Agreed.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next