[quote]BH6 wrote:
Nearly every country is within the US sphere of influence and interest. [/quote]
Thanks for playing.
In case you missed it, the point was that the US claims the known universe as its sphere of influence. The US considers every other country’s sphere of influence to be contained within its borders.
You probably don’t see a problem with that because you consider yourselves “the good guys”, and everyone you fight has to be “the bad guy” - almost by definition.
As opposed to…?
Newsflash: There are close to 7 billion people on this planet who “demand” the same things.
Yet, when somebody else does it, you call them “savages”, “commies”, “terrorists” or whatever the fad du jour is.
It may come as a shock to you, but it is just as vital for many other countries.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BH6 wrote:
Nearly every country is within the US sphere of influence and interest.
Thanks for playing.
In case you missed it, the point was that the US claims the known universe as its sphere of influence. The US considers every other country’s sphere of influence to be contained within its borders.
You probably don’t see a problem with that because you consider yourselves “the good guys”, and everyone you fight has to be “the bad guy” - almost by definition.
The American people demand energy, access to goods, access to markets and security.
As opposed to…?
Newsflash: There are close to 7 billion people on this planet who “demand” the same things.
We have to have contact with world, and set the conditions in the world for favorable relations with the United States.
Yet, when somebody else does it, you call them “savages”, “commies”, “terrorists” or whatever the fad du jour is.
Space is certainly within our sphere of interest, it is vital to our security and communications.
It may come as a shock to you, but it is just as vital for many other countries.
But who cares? Right?[/quote]
Exactly. We can certainly consider the needs of other countries, and we can accommodate most of those needs. The US (or any other country for that matter) can only make decisions based on what is good for the nation. To make a foriegn policy decision based on any other criteria is doing a disservice to the American people. That is the way of world.
I like when you write “newsflash” in your posts. It is like you are stamping your angry little foot.
[quote]lixy wrote:
In case you missed it, the point was that the US claims the known universe as its sphere of influence. [/quote]
Don’t the Muslims break the world into 2 spheres also? If so, they have been doing it for well over a thousand years before America was even founded. The object of the muslims is to conquer the “sphere of war,” which is non-Islamic world. So you could say the same thing about Muslims as well.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
The US (or any other country for that matter) can only make decisions based on what is good for the nation. To make a foriegn policy decision based on any other criteria is doing a disservice to the American people. That is the way of world. [/quote]
The way I (and apparently the majority of Americans) see it, the Iraq war did a great disservice to the American people;
It killed thousands Americans.
Many more lost limbs and psychological equilibrium.
The war drained the tax-payers of trillions of dollars.
Oil prices are soaring.
The dollar seems to be on a free-fall.
The war boosted global terrorism and isolated Americans.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BH6 wrote:
even some franchises of Al Queda are funded and armed by Iran
This is a preposterous claim.[/quote]
It is a fact. Iran funds and supports any group that opposes the United States and can keep the US bottled up in Iraq. Iran doesn’t directly support the Al Queda leadership in Pakistan, but they support the franchise groups like the Zarqarwi Network.
The 2004 zarqarwi letter that denied any contact with Iran or Al Queda has been proven to be part of the Iranian disinformation campaign to hide thier involvement.
Saad Bin Laden (Osama’s son) is in Iran, his location and activities are not really known. Iran is protecting him and other Al Queda leaders.
Al Queda was in Iraq prior to the US invasion. They were operating in northern Iraq as the Zarqarwi network and Ansar Al Sunnah(see my original post)(edit: I mean Ansar al Islam, they did not adopt the Ansar al Sunnah name until after the invasion). The AQ associated groups may not have been directly tied to Saddam, but they did not conduct attacks on the Bathist Regime. There was some sort of collusion between the AQ and the Hussein regime that kept the peace between them and focused the AQ efforts in the North.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
Al Queda was in Iraq prior to the US invasion. [/quote]
Don’t take my word for it, but I’m pretty sure there is plenty of Al-Qaeda in the US as well. How about blowing up the place, instating chaos, and making millions of (the bomb-surviving) Americans refugees?
But seriously, the main difference between your position and mine is that I need to see solid evidence before condoning use of violence. You on the other hand, are just too happy with weak theories suggesting “some sort of collusion”. Makes on wonder if have any consideration for human life.
[quote]orion wrote:
I´d bet a lot of money that Iran sponsors every organisation that ties the US down in Iraq. [/quote]
Are you serious? Do you think Iran wants the US army stationed within miles of its borders? Do you not think Tehran has more to gain from a stable Iraq?
They’re supporting Al-Mahdi for obvious reasons, but other than that, I don’t see any reason why they’d want to support Al-Qaeda in Iraq. You must have a better imagination than me.
A democratic Iraq will naturally be an ally of Tehran. You can bet good money on that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
I´d bet a lot of money that Iran sponsors every organisation that ties the US down in Iraq.
Are you serious? Do you think Iran wants the US army stationed within miles of its borders? Do you not think Tehran has more to gain from a stable Iraq?
They’re supporting Al-Mahdi for obvious reasons, but other than that, I don’t see any reason why they’d want to support Al-Qaeda in Iraq. You must have a better imagination than me.
A democratic Iraq will naturally be an ally of Tehran. You can bet good money on that.[/quote]
Iran needs to control Iraq, not ally with it. The rise of Karbala and Najaf as centers of the Shia religion greatly reduces the claim on Shia dogma that Iran has held since the Islamic revolution. The influencial Shia figure is going to rise out of Karbala and the religious schools in that city. Iran wants to install thier goverment in Iraq, to have a decidly non-democratic Shite ally.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
I´d bet a lot of money that Iran sponsors every organisation that ties the US down in Iraq.
Are you serious? Do you think Iran wants the US army stationed within miles of its borders? Do you not think Tehran has more to gain from a stable Iraq?
They’re supporting Al-Mahdi for obvious reasons, but other than that, I don’t see any reason why they’d want to support Al-Qaeda in Iraq. You must have a better imagination than me.
A democratic Iraq will naturally be an ally of Tehran. You can bet good money on that.[/quote]
Only if Iran was a real democracy. Iran’s democracy is a farce and it does not want its people exposed to real democracy.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Only if Iran was a real democracy. Iran’s democracy is a farce and it does not want its people exposed to real democracy.[/quote]
Zap, I’m suprised at you, man! Iran is a real democracy.
A real democracy like the ones in China and Venezuela!
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
I´d bet a lot of money that Iran sponsors every organisation that ties the US down in Iraq.
Are you serious? Do you think Iran wants the US army stationed within miles of its borders? Do you not think Tehran has more to gain from a stable Iraq?
They’re supporting Al-Mahdi for obvious reasons, but other than that, I don’t see any reason why they’d want to support Al-Qaeda in Iraq. You must have a better imagination than me.
A democratic Iraq will naturally be an ally of Tehran. You can bet good money on that.[/quote]
The Bush administration has made it pretty clear who is next.
If I were Irans leadership I´d want the US as occupied as possible.
It is efficient and dirt cheap to look the other way if weapons are smuggled into Iraq.