Obama’S Damaging Blow To Our Military

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1326497319' post='2368561']
the 8 minute mark in the video I posted is a very interesting thing to watch to put ourselves in their shoes. I am not saying that the Irania regime is good, but there is a legitimate grevience against us. and if they are economically supporting some proxy war for their cause... well la-dee-dah, do we have any moral standing to condemn them for something like that?[/QUOTE]

They aren't just economically supporting proxy wars. Their covert forces, such as elements of the Revolutionary Guard, are actively engaging in proxy wars. As to the relativism that compares us attempting to push the Iraqi government to a liberal democracy that respects human rights to Iran pushing Iraq towards a shia' theocracy whereby women can have their heads bashed in with stones for substantiated charges of adultery, I don't know where to go. If you don't see any moral difference between the sort of government we are supporting in Iraq versus the one that Iran is supporting then we probably have somewhat incommensurable views of foreign policy. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, that's just where I see the logic as your statement going.

I agree that the Iranian people have legitimate grievances against us for actions wrongs we committed against them decades ago. We helped the Shah and his thugs get into power when Mosadegh attempted to nationalize his countries natural resources from Anglo-Iranian Oil (currently BP) we supported him as his secret police brutalized his citizens, we (as you pointed out) callously played Iraq against Iran and vica versa. But the Iranian government (at least the major power players) has no legitimate gripes against anybody.

[QUOTE]we do the exact same thing, we have done the exact same thing for a long time, against them. their position that there should be a nation called Palestine replacing the spot in the map where the current nation called Israel is now drawn is a position that is popular among Arabs and Persians, it's a position that's in their self-interest, and perhaps they egg on that situation.[/QUOTE]

It's not in their defensive self-interest. Bogging Israel down in the OT's is in their self-interest in the sense of better permitting them to bully the Sunni powers and exert their influence across the region.

[QUOTE]Israel can defend itself if it feels threatened[/QUOTE]

Not if Iran has nuclear weapons

[QUOTE]though Iran has no intention of attacking it[/QUOTE]

They are currently attacking Israel, just not with their conventional military. Does anyone doubt that their covert actions would increase ten-fold if they had a nuclear deterrent to Israel engaging in retaliation with their conventional military?

[QUOTE]... the best way to solve that basket of eggs is to really make a two-state solution that works so that tensions in that area are lowered and Iran is less able to influence that situation.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree. Unfortunately, for whatever noble aspiration there once were for a Jewish state and for the Palestinian people, I really doubt that is going to happen.

[QUOTE]regarding their expansionism "since their beginning", are you talking in terms of practical actions, or some religious philosophy of a one-world caliphate? beause in the beginning of their regime they were attacked by Iraq, not the other way around, while the US played both sides.
[/quote]

Ever since Khomeini began slaughtering thousands of potential opponents within his own boarders. An action that had nothing to do with Saddam or our (shameful) support for him.

[Aloysius]

my point is that Iran is engaging in covert proxy wars currently, and so are we. I was not referencing Iraq necessarily, but also our covert acts of war and our economic wars against them.

I am not entirely aware of the direct attacks that you accuse the Republican Guard them of making against Israel, I was under the impression that there was some financial support going towards Palestinian anti-Israel groups from them, that was the way they were attacking Israel, but I'm open to see your source, it's just not something I've heard of. either way, Israel is also engaging in covert attacks against Iran, and so is the US.

[quote]They are currently attacking Israel, just not with their conventional military. Does anyone doubt that their covert actions would increase ten-fold if they had a nuclear deterrent to Israel engaging in retaliation with their conventional military?[/quote]
they might, or they might use it and their new standing among nations whose sovereignty is actually respected to try to exert their influence over the middle east in other ways.

I have no love for the Iranian regime. It would be nice if they were overthrown by a good moderate muslim uprising that democratically represented the people of that country. but our agression in this matter is NOT helping IMO. our agressive behavior continues to help to escalate the potential conflict, and as I explained, our current policy basically REQUIRES eventual war with Iran. there is literally no other possible outcome for our policy, and I say we steer away from that policy and try other means... Israel needs to try other means as well. the fact that Iran is engaging in covert proxy wars in Palestine/Israel is proof to me that, well, there's a stiffled war going on in that land over whether the Palestinians should have a country or not. The engagement of the Iranians should be pressure to work towards the solution to that problem, we should not attack Iran for taking a particular stance on that problem (their stance is a one-state Palestine solution), because it is indeed a problem and there are two sides to that bitter issue.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326498837' post='2368572']
Ever since Khomeini began slaughtering thousands of potential opponents within his own boarders. An action that had nothing to do with Saddam or our (shameful) support for him.
[/quote]
what are you meaning by "expansionist"? I understand he did bad things in his own country and he was a bad guy. it's a testimony to just how bad the unintended consequences of foreign interventionism can be that our actions led to his rise to power IMO. but by "expansionism" I thought you were trying to suggest an attempted imperial-type takeover of the surrounding middle east, and this particular atrocity doesn't fit that description to me.

[Socrates]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1326486203' post='2368464']
With Iran flexing its muscle and China building up their war machines (as well as others), this is irresponsible of this administration to exchange our nations safety to keep a bloated government even more bloated.
[/quote]
But, hey that's totally chill, as we all know know Iran, China, North Korea, and the rest of the non-American world are perfectly good and peaceful in their intents. If only big, bad America would get out of the way, the world would be a perfectly happy peaceful place without war or strife - just like it was before America came on the scene to bring evil into the Garden.

[Aloysius]

8% reduction over 10 years... oh no! we'll be open to attack! bad Obama, how dare you cut wasteful government spending when it's not the wasteful government spending we want you to cut!

America needs to go back to the peace, trade, and friendship that gave it esteem throughout the world before big, bad, military industrial America stirred up anger and resentment around the world by overthrowing democratically elected governments and propping up dictators. it needs to keep strong military capability, of course, and engage in diplomacy and trade throughout the world and continue to win friends and influence people while respecting their sovereignty and not being involved in their internal affairs.

[ardillacid]

I'm moving this to the debate table

[BG45]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326497191' post='2368560']
I think people here know that I'm pretty critical of Israel's actions.
[/quote]

I was actually thinking of another site I go to. israel has a tendency to derail topics when brought up, because of how divisive issues around it can be. We actually instituted a temporary rule there because it got so bad:

[quote]For those who keep bringing up Israel in threads unrelated to it...don't do it anymore. I will lock any thread that brings up 'the Israel issue' outside of a thread in which it is a main topic of discussion. I will not tolerate the hijacking anymore. If you want to talk about Israel then you can make a thread about Israel.

For those that purposely bring up Israel just to get a thread closed, or else to simply play around and test things, you can expect a summary ban for whatever length of time is deemed fit. There will be no negotiation.[/quote]


PM thankfully, is less volatile it seems

[4588686]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1326586499' post='2369188']
I was actually thinking of another site I go to. israel has a tendency to derail topics when brought up, because of how divisive issues around it can be. We actually instituted a temporary rule there because it got so bad:




PM thankfully, is less volatile it seems
[/quote][quote name='BG45' timestamp='1326586499' post='2369188']
I was actually thinking of another site I go to. israel has a tendency to derail topics when brought up, because of how divisive issues around it can be. We actually instituted a temporary rule there because it got so bad:




PM thankfully, is less volatile it seems
[/quote]

Hm. Seems like a Fish Eaters sort of message.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1326501285' post='2368600']
I'm moving this to the debate table
[/quote]

Seems appropriate at this point...

[BG45]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326588466' post='2369228']
Hm. Seems like a Fish Eaters sort of message.
[/quote]

Pretty much the opposite actually. Dominantly an Atheist and anti-religion board.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1326498212' post='2368569']
Most European militaries, all European militaries one might say, simply aren't built for wars. As an indicator of this, check out Germany's constitution. They only allow their military which is one of the most powerful in the continent to be deployed with UN authorisation or if someone makes war upon them and their NATO allies.[/quote]

Sort of. The thing you really have to look at is the "big-ticket" items and assets that give you long-distance punch (like AWACS/Tanker&Transport aircraft/Nuclear submarines/carriers etc...).Whilst, on paper, the european armies have a lot of people in uniform (about 1.5 - 2 million) most european forces have little-to-no long-range assets.

[quote]As a result, they lack the inclination to build up a military that allows them to engage in high intensity warfare. [/quote]

Germany has more than 200,000 people in it's armed forces and would struggle to operate 10,000 in a different continent for any significant length of time. European armies are designed to fight on (or near) home soil - that they can do quite well. The UK (and France to a certain extent) are the exception - even then though, there isn't much slack in the system.