We Were "This Close" Says Iran

Past glory? That's so Obama. It ain't over yet, just ask Trump.

 

Mr. President Trump, nice ring to it huh?

 

Wow .. what a response - completely avoiding the content of my post. Yapping on about Past Glory as if this conversation is some kind of Trump vs Obama affair.

Kind of timely though - See post 247 "Arming a terrorist proxy army in foreign nations would be the first violation that comes to mind. Talking Obama here not Trump"

What do you think about those rule book violations ? Don't care .. doesn't matter ? Why not give tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military equipment - including surface to air missiles - perfect for taking out civilian airliners - to Al Qaeda.

You all good with that ?

 

That's just silly, I already told you I'm not an Obama fan.

 

What's silly is that your morals change with the wind. If Obama did it - its bad - If Trump its good. Is that the sum total of your ability with respect to objectivity and critical thinking ?

The conversation is about whether or not we should keep the rule book - It should not matter if it is Trump breaking the rules or Obama. What friggen difference does that make ?

So to confirm - you were against the rule violations related to arming Al Qaeda insurgents - in a sovereign nation.

 

Went into Iraq because they keep adverting the inspection agreement they signed and kept lighting our aircraft up with SAM radar. Both clear violations of the "rules" they agreed too after their failed attempt to forcefully annex Kuwait. The one where they raped and pillage Kuwait...you recall?

The ceasefire agreement they violated repeatedly.

You speak about "rules" this entire thread and then ignore the fact that saddam violated them daily when it's suits your purpose. Pathetic.


I'm done with you. To say your uninformed is a understatement.

 

"To say your uninformed is a understatement"

Now you are projecting because you were owned.

"I'm done with you"

That's what all the really "informed" folks like you do when they get owned - run from the playground crying "NO NO NO" and name calling - prior to sticking head deep in the sandbox of denial.

I am not quite done with you - it would be depriving myself of way too much fun to leave now.

We are talking about the Iraq war - not Desert Storm - and the rational given to the world for why we went in there.

You were claiming "WMD" - a claim that turned out to be totally false.

There were other violations by Saddam - some which we tried used to try to sway the security council - in conjunction with the WMD claims - but to no avail. The Bush admin was going around claiming "imminent threat of a mushroom cloud"

Your claim is false - quit talking stuff that has been refuted 6 ways to Sunday - and then try moving the goal posts. Not that it mattered because Saddam's violations were not cause for waging war.

His airspace was controlled - he had weapons inspectors running all over the country - the folks in charge of that process - Hans Blix et al - said things were under control - and so on.

The coalition of the willing consisted of Britain - our lapdog - or are we theirs - interesting question that one. All of our other allies took a pass.

What were the consequences of this rule violation ? - hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead - Iraq turned into a Jihadist wonderland - some 5000 US soldiers dead - tens of thousands wounded - and (combined with Afghanistan and other nonsense) over 6 Trillion dollars in Treasure. I claim we could have saved 8 Trillion but - either way - we could have found better things to do with that money.

Had we obeyed the rules - we could have avoided those consequences.

Once again you project your own failings onto others - and yes - it is quite pathetic.

Saddam violated the rules - which is why he was condemned by the world - as he should have been.

Unfortunately - when Saddam was using Chemical weapons against his own people - the Kurds - and against the Iranians (who could have but didn't use chemical weapons) - Saddam was our ally - and we supported him in some of these efforts.

A rule violation we should have avoided.

 

People who have no respect for the rule of law at home, and defend it being undermined, cannot be expected to take notions about the rule of law in international affairs seriously. Especially since, unlike the former, international affairs (even before the frontal assault by the US on all its remnants since 2000, especially under Bush and now Trump) was already (and has always been) governed more by the rule of the jungle than the rule of law.

 

Correct - but 2 points.

1) While related - domestic and international are different spheres - but yes ... both degraded badly.

The thing is - back then - we could get away with it - as we were the only game in town.

2) Times have changed

 

Extraordinary rendition is nasty? Compared to what? An image of Sadaam looking into a trench
filled with bodies of his opponents? Did this ER lead to that?

 

We need to find an image of Reagan standing over the trench of people
he had murdered in his own country. Let's find one.
Sure, for a while America supported Hitler, and was friends with Japan
in the early 1930's.

 

the point is that you called Sadaam Hussein's many enemies "Dead nobodys (sic) "
Would you have joined those protestors who said the West should employ sanctions
against Iraq over the Kuwait invasion, and accused America of starving Iraqi kids?
Would you have gone to Iraq to a 'human shield' to Sadaam Hussein?
Would you have cried in the street that Hussein might torch Kuwait's oil fields and
cause a global winter? Then give him the idea of actually trying that?

 

To have respect for the 'rule of law' requires an ideological commitment to something which has greater import and meaning than immediate personal material interests. That itself speaks of having some belief in a 'higher good' than simply what helps or hurts a person or a group's immediate material interest. Those who don't have this belief, and are simply guided by cost-benefit calculations, may give voice to the idea of the 'rule of law' as a lever against their rivals or enemies, but won't ever feel constrained by its import for themselves.

As for international affairs, the US has actually been less constrained, and far less interested in advancing notions based on 'international law' and 'international norms' since the end of the cold war and, in particular, ever since the neocons began their assault on these notions under Bush. Given the neocons connections to Israel, that isn't surprising either. While all these 'international norms' were already skewed heavily to favor western powers and a status quo that was clearly in their favor, when it came to expansionist and aggressive agendas such as what is and was represented by the state of Israel, these norms were inconvenient. The same applied to the larger project which became the bible for US foreign policy, namely the Project for a New American Century. While Trump and some of his crew might not read from the same exact script and scripture, ultimately the whole America First mantra and the strong nexus between Trump and the far right supporters of Israel in the US and in Israel, leads to the same place. With Trump, who is brazen, unapologetic, and rather transparent in his disregard for all these legal norms, whether domestically or internationally, the whole thing has reached a point where even the lip service once paid to 'international law' and 'international norms' is no longer all that evident.

As for whether the US has the actual power, military, economic, diplomatic, and geopolitical, to enforce its hegemonic will on global affairs, and translate the whims of the special interest groups which control its politics into what it may regard as the "law", and label anyone who resists this hegemony with titles ranging from 'terrorist' (for those who take arms to resist it) to one or the other epithets reserved for those who resist it merely in words, it is somewhat early to give a final verdict now. Too many countries which, if they did band together, could resist this process are simply engaged in various forms of appeasement. Even Russia and China, the two major powers that are seen as most willing to do more than issue private condemnation of this behavior, are ultimately unwilling (even if able) to pay the price for crossing America. The only group which, right now, stands openly and un-apologetically, against US hegemony and does something about it is the axis of resistance led by Iran. Of course, for Iran to be able to stand up to the US and company on its own requires a lot of sacrifice, risk taking, and a huge price that might (at some point) stretch its own people to the point that they too decide its best to 'cry uncle'. Except, even when Iran cried uncle and signed into the fraud called the JCPOA, it wasn't enough. The US wanted more and the more means things that most Iranians recognize will turn their country into the next Syria.

 

Actually, I was referring to Mr. Hussein as being the “dead nobody.” Like I said previously, I’m talking about concepts and ideas, while you bring up Mr. Hussein. Well, he’s dead and gone, but the engine that drives American political/economic dominance lives on....

 

I guess someone hurt you in this thread if you go racist, be strong...

 

How exactly did you construe that post as racist?

 

yes, America has political and economic dominance - but not for long.
Now it's China's turn, and it's being very arrogant and menacing about
it already - even though it's still number 2.
Many nations have their day. Look at Portugal and Spain competing,
or France and England.
What nation do YOU think should have economic and political power?
(please don't say 'none' because that's the Leftist favorite evasion.)

 

It's more than that, he was the commander of those proxies, he didnt get a statue in Lebanon just for supplying weapons, in THIS kind of war, where America only send "advisors" and Iran only makes "odorless farts" - he was an accepted target, master of farts, and the justification was given, in a conventional war with clear rules I'd agree with you. but most wars now days are done like that.

And for your question, I think everyone takes into account that ANY of those proxies would have killed a high office American or Israeli if they got the chance for it, I think they would even go to great efforts to make that so.
Again, this is not conventional war and not a conventional President either....

 

The "Jews" Inc. and what you implied on "them", but I'm not judging someone in pain

 

And you believe that? you would rather take your chances with Hitler or Stalin than Trump ?

 

One that at least tries to keep in mind of higher human pursuits, where economic and political dominance don’t become an end in themselves, but rather as a means to elevate the human perception of mankind.

Granted, no such nation exists, but a man can dream!

 

Sure, but in the context of my post, I don’t see how it’s wrong or racist. A salient reason as to why Evangelicals and Jews support Israel is because they see the country on a divine mission, the same way the Mullahs and Iranians likewise regard themselves on a mission from God.

The point was that you are ignoring reasons that are not secular in nature in attempting to rationalize Iranian actions....

 

Not being American, but I think the founding principles of America
come closest to that. Very few Americans, even those who claim
they have been treated badly, want to leave America.