Ron Paul and Michele Bachman square off

The consequences of the sanctions were because of Hussein's refusal to cooperate with UN mandates.

 

And if the U.N. tried to "mandate" us? If the "global community" didn't agree with an in house decision, and were more than happy to send their sons to die for some supreme dictate, you would also support such a position? You can't have it both ways.

 

Why would the UN issue mandates to the US?

 

Do you honestly think it is impossible, once there are no rogue nations left to conquer, for a western nation to get in a disagreement with the global community? One simply has to look at our own nation's history. The north and south weren't enemies in the beginning. Surely one could argue the global community would want to keep the globe whole, just like the federal government and the nation, so pulling out will not be an option. Basically, when the "global community" need not kiss any particular nation's ass, won't we be at the mercy of said "global community"? It could easily be over our own nuclear arsenal and some supreme dictate for all nations to dispose of them. For an example off the top of my head.

 

What you're suggesting is completely unrealistic.

At any rate, Hussein was responsible for his county's demise before the invasion.

 

Haha. Slippery slopes are real. You are not dumb. I've read your posts. You just don't want to acknowledge the fact that you would tell the U.N. to go to hell because it shoots a hole in your argument. Pride comes before the fall.

 

I wouldn't tell the UN to "go to hell" because the UN would have no reason to issue a mandate to the US.

 

No? There was a time when the federal government had limited powers as well. We all know what direction that went. You don't think a world that leans towards market socialism, with a "democratic" central power, *cough*, wouldn't maybe pass global minimum wage laws, global overtime laws, mandated universal healthcare, vacation time with pay, etc., etc.?

 

Be sure and have that *cough* checked out if it persists.

 

You have no evidence he would have done that. Also his position towards the British was based on the Oil deal.

Deals can always be reneged on. US reneg on the gold standard in 1971. US reneg on Native American treaties. (*)(*)(*)(*) happens. The Oil was Iranian, not British.

Then show the conclusive evidence he was looking for anything other then a better Oil deal. I am (*)(*)(*)(*) sure you can't.

Keep ignoring history.

So there was a different way to handle Iran in 1953 that didn't involve a Coup?

After the Revolution, Iranian Oil went to the Soviet Union. It allowed the Soviet Union to say a round for a few more years then it should have.

The US/UK would have had 2 countries into which funnel weapons, supplies and money into Afghanistan. Instead of relying on a Sunni country (Pakistan). Iran being Shia based would have been a counter balance to the Sunni power that rose during that period.

I can and have based on US and Foreign laws. Are you gonna argue the law with me now? The US goes after people who support Hezbollah even when Hezbollah is an elected body of Lebanon. So there is no moral relativist here. Just reality.

And how is that so? I would you like to define it. None of this one's a terrorist and one is not. I want to you to define in detail the differences. You'll find there isn't much difference.

Sending money (phrase for the overall). You think the US/UK doesn't have their own Hezbollah that is used against Iran. Ever hear of Mujahedeen-e Khalq? Iran in 2003 offered a deal to the US that if the US disarmed MEK, Iran would stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah. Don't be surprised to see MEK officially off the US terrorist list in the next few months.

Actually she is. She won't ever tell you about what the SLA, GoC and the Tigers and what they did in Lebanon. She's one sided about the history, but I expect this from a person who's first job and career started at an SLA/Israeli owned TV station called METV. I won't even go into her sloppy bio.

Actually, no. His position was that he was popular with the common people. The Ayatollahs holding a position against him would have been bad for them.

So the US put the Shah in and the Shah gave more power to the Ayatollahs. Is that not a direct connection?

No what? You don't think 8 years of Bush led to Obama?

How is it nonsense. If China put a puppet in the White House, it's different then the US putting a puppet in power in Iran how?

I am foolish to think that if Democratic reforms in the 50s, 60s, 70s if Mosaddegh was not overthrown it would have limited the power of the Shia fundamentalist? So Kuwait and UAE are not prime examples of the liberalizing that took place during that period. (*)(*)(*)(*) me for having traveled and done business in these countries and not being beheaded for being an infidel. Now I'll admit UAE and Kuwait can have better labor laws but they are years ahead of many in the Middle East.

Yes, I am a very intelligent person, but I am free thinker and don't fall for propaganda. Just cause some news outlet or politician, or wanna be expert tells you something over and over doesn't mean it's true.

Yeah, I'll skip Churchill's opinion. I read the set once and refuse to read the memoir again.

Same goes for you.

Yep, dig it up, because it'll be a few years until the FIOA will allow for the release of the information and since Delta was barely 2 years old, it was viewed by many in the CIA and Government as the red headed stepchild. So the CIA could have told him that, but reality was probably different.

We'll disagree here.

It's a conspiracy theory? Henry Kissinger " if you (Bhutto) do not cancel, modify or postpone the Reprocessing Plant Agreement, we will make a horrible example from you."

There was no bomb on the C-130 but rather it looked like sabotage. Who did it? Who knows, but Soviets were a good start.

Uh we disagree about Egypt. Obama did the right thing.

You mean war.

Show me the evidence that they are. Remember we were told Iraq had WMDs. Haven't seen those yet either.

You mean the ones in which Iran has publicly talked about? How about Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant? Or the planned Darkhovin Nuclear Power Plant?

In a classical and modern sense it's democracy. The word you are looking for is Republic and a Constitutional Republic.

 

Of course. Not a better way different ways.

Armchair general nonsense.

Moral relativism. Not interested.

Why are you repeating complete lies? That offer never existed as you well know:

http://www.meforum.org/1764/the-guldimann-memorandum

So the question remains, why are you repeating these hackneyed, worn-out lies?

You're making a joke of it now?

This "led to" stuff is nonsense. Bush's mistakes made it easier for Obama to win the 2008 election.

Because China is not the United States and the United States is not Iran and it's not 1953. No more nonsense please.

Pathetic. I'm getting sick of this now. Delta Force was charged with the hostage rescue. Col. Beckwith, Commanding Officer in overall charge of formulating the rescue mission meets with CIA liason Officer:

"I said to him(CIA liason officer)..'What we gotta do is get in touch with the stay-behind assets in country and task them with our intelligence requirements.'...He led me to a quiet corner and whispered the astonishing news, 'We don't have any.'

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Delta-Force-Charlie-Beckwith/dp/0440118867"]Amazon.com: Delta Force (9780440118862): Charlie Beckwith: Books[/ame]

We will disagree on EVERYTHING related to the ME I can assure you.

I told you; I don't believe you.


[/QUOTE]

In a classical and modern sense it's democracy. The word you are looking for is Republic and a Constitutional Republic.[/QUOTE]

No and no. The words I wanted were the ones I used - the ones used by Cicero and the founding fathers - "mixed constitution" - just like you would find in Britain(constitutional monarchy) or the U.S. for instance.

 

I can't disagree with you on the need for some overarching changes to the status quo. I don't subscribe to the idea that all politicians are corrupt. Rather, I think the system leaves no room for progress.