Originally Posted by MJ1970
Good, then we agree that Iran doesn't currently represent a real, credible and certainly not imminent threat.
It represents a real, credible threat. I wouldn't say it's imminent yet. However, I don't think we should wait for it to be imminent. That doesn't doesn't mean I want military action, but we should absolutely not go down the Kumbaya path you describe.
If you honestly don't see the problem with that specific analogy, I can't help you.
I think get it, there's always a valid reason for the US to use aggression but never one for anyone the US deems...ummm unjustified in using aggression.
Not at all.
It's rather amusing that you are actually justifying Vietnam given that most people now admit that war to have been a major mistake of US foreign policy, not to mention that the escalation in Vietnam was predicated by a lie
to the American people and Congress.
I'm not justifying it at all. I'm simply saying it wasn't an act of aggression. That is all.
Iraq can easily be viewed the same way.
No, they cannot. Totally different situations.
So 2 of the 3 are epic fails and, arguably the meddling, which you've admitted to may well be a key source of terrorist activity targeted at the US.
I'll ask you to restate that as I'm not sure what you mean.
You're really digging a deep hole here.
It's almost as if, since becoming a true super power (during and as a result of WWII), the US foreign policy and military approach has been almost a complete failure, possibly as a result of its hubris.
I don't agree with that at all.
We had the right policy with the Soviets...or should I say we had the right policy under Reagan. That's a major example which contrasts with you position.
Different but related. I think you'd agree that when one sticks one's nose in places it doesn't belong (and the US has done this often) one it likely to get punched in the nose from time to time...or, minimally, threatened.
Agreed. See "Installing the Shah" for an example.
If the meddler then responds that the meddle-ee is being the aggressor, we'd probably agree that is a rather disingenuous position to take.
In a vacuum, yes. In reality and with regard to Iran, no. Obviously installing the Shah was a bad move that ended up biting us in the butt. However, there isn't much point trying to re-litigate that now. It doesn't change the fact that the Mullahs, the Ayatollah and President Ahmadinejhad are anti-Semitic fanatics who are dedicated to Israel's destruction, support of terrorism, oppression of their people, etc. I really don't see the point in going back decade after decade to play the Guess the Real Aggressor
game. At present, Iran is the one making aggressive statements towards Israel. Iran is the one that supports terrorism. Iran's leaders are the ones who question the Holocaust (ehh..pardon me..."research whether or not it occurred as an open, scientific question." Cough.)
Here's the point: Given the world as it is, given Iran as it is, my view is Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. We should use every diplomatic and economic tool we have, but in the end it may take military action to prevent it. I fundamentally disagree with those who say "we" have no right to tell Iran if it can have a nuclear weapon, just as I disagree with opening trade with Iran is a good idea. Those views aren't going to change...unless Iran does.