I disagree that we had NO good reasons to attack Iraq…this isn’t to say that the reasons we had were sufficient to actually do it though. Those are, IMHO, two different things.
Panama I think is similar…we had strategic reasons to take ole Manuel out…whether those reasons were sufficient for us to actually do it is a different matter. As for the others…again, I don’t think the US has ever attacked anyone for NO reason…which isn’t to say that our reasons were sufficient for the level of our reaction.
After 9/11 you are most likely correct. However, it is not totally clear that all of the factions in Tehran are unwilling to risk reprisals or that the degree to which we’re tied down in Iraq isn’t seen as significantly weakening any ability to deal with matters. It also stands to reason that the ‘current situation’ will not remain current forever. Already, judging from some of the posters on this board, Iran could direct Hezbollah to attack US targets, we could have a 250 agent team investigate the issue for five years, come back showing that authorization for the attack went back to the highest levels of Iran’s government… and have Americans say that it was only alleged and/or no problem.
It seems that you are using “genuine threat”, instead of, perhaps “imminent threat”. No, they are most likely not going to launch Hezbollah attacks on us tomorrow, it is not an imminent threat. But as long as they do sponsor Hezbollah, they are definitely a genuine threat.
That’s a bit of a strawman, isn’t it tom?
The issue isn’t one that Iran wants peace and leave to permeate the world. And the concern isn’t simply that Iran is looking out for its own interests. The concern is that some of what Iran has been doing (eg. supporting Hezbollah and spreading Islamic fundamentalism) are threats to the safety and security of America and Americans.
If Iran was an isolationist nation, or simply wanted to maintain political influence in the region (of a non-Islamic fundamentalist influence type), I don’t believe there’d be any real problem. The issue is not that Iran is pursuing its own interests, but the threat that some of those interests pose to the United States.
And of course, the response to an agenda which threatens America is to be on our guard and not assume they’ve got peaceful motives until they change their agenda. Heck, we can (and as I just said, probably should have) engaged in negotiations, but until there aren’t factions in Iran’s government who have a very real connection to and influence over Islamic fundamentalism or Hezbollah, it makes sense to be on our guard. We don’t have to demonize them, but nor do we have to drop our guard when another nation still threatens us. That’s reasonable, right?
No… they can’t launch an actual invasion. But then again, I doubt at this point that even China could with a ‘human wave’ tactic. And some of the Iranian government certainly do seem nuts enough to launch Hezbollah attacks on American soil and damn the repercussions (remember the plastic keys).
Then again, nobody in this thread has actually suggested that Iran could invade the US.
But even if we assume that any possible attacks wouldn’t come on American soil, that would still leave our troops, embassies, tourists, etc… vulnerable to attack. As an American all those things worry me. Support of Hezbollah is not benign.
Define “demonizing” in this context. Are we just talking about the Axis of Evil speech (which nobody in this thread has actually supported)? If not, could you clarify?
Analogy is always suspect. Would you dispute that as long as certain factions in Iran hold power and continue to support groups like Hezbollah, any peace agreement we reach is only reached with a portion of their government? That preconditions like that are a bit more in line with, say, a police negotiator asking someone to drop a gun before they start talking, rather than, say, someone being more interested in avenging the deaths of various great-grandparents?
Well, that’s certainly a relief, XT! Even if, as you seem to suggest, America is willing to launch attacks without sufficient reason, that is not to say that America might launch an attack for no reason. Very, very different. So, even if the attack were launched for a transparently bogus reason, there’s still a reason, just not a convincing reason.
That’s a load of my mind, getting a bit worried there, for a moment.
Is our support of Israel “benign”? After all, according to your stated definitions, Israel might well be considered our proxy. We supply weapons and funding, do we not? And if Israel were to launch an attack on, say, suspected nuclear sites, an attack that kills innocent civilians (as it surely must), would you then say that America has engaged in terrorism by proxy?
And, following your same reasoning, wouldn’t Iran then be entirely justified in believing herself to be at war with the US, and being the innocent victim of an unprovoked attack? By our proxy?
No need to bring Israel into it. America supports the MKO, a group that our own State Department, not to mention Europe have officially declared terrorists. But they’re our terrorists you see. I guess that makes it different.
Ah well. Anybody reading along, by this point, probably has a pretty good idea as to whether or not there’s real evidence that we’re going to attack Iran and whether or not being wary of Iran’s intentions, support of terrorism and their nuclear program shows a rational caution or belligerence and fearmongering, with or without devotion to the neocon party line and/or traitorous devotion to foreign powers.
The peanut gallery can make up their minds and determine whose position was based on evidence, research and logic, and who was slinging partisan talking points while not bothering to let facts get in the way of a good bullshit session.
I’d bet that they already have.
In any case tom, I suppose you can have the last word.
Whatcha got there, Der, is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Not that skilled, myself, in parsing such distinctions, but we have some others here who can slice the baloney so thin you can read through it. Of course, its still baloney, but that doesn’t apply to horseshit.
Which interests exactly are these? Your posts are unclear on this point. You may have assumed so, but it is not at all clear why a local military ascendancy by Iran is contrary to the US interest(s).
Similarly, your posts refer to ‘conflict’. How does the situation presented put Iran in conflict with the US, other than it doing something the US doesn’t want?
It is often very helpful to focus on exactly what, if any, interests are involved. You might find after that answering that question that the imagined conflict turns out to be illusory.