I meant to say Iran is "shiite" not ***** ! :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe:
And the United States has never given military or financial aid in support of brutal dictators or for activities aimed at overthrowing a sovereign government? Yeah, sure!

The old policy of Realpolitik, which said that a dictator was fine as long as he was our dictator, was always morally questionable (though I can understand why it happened in the circumstances of the Cold War). But when Realpolitik is abandoned and instead the US takes on rogue states and tyrannical regimes you declare that to be wrong too. I don't. I believe that such regimes should be confronted when we have the capacity to do so.

As for overthrowing sovereign governments, we need to ask who actually has the sovereignty. In Iraq it was Saddam and his two sons, not the Iraqi people. Sovereignty means nothing in such circumstances. If you elevate sovereignty above everything else you actually end up defending the brutal dictators that you appear to detest.

US and British foreign policy has often wrongly supported brutal regimes in the belief that they are a bulwark against something worse (e.g., going over to the communist cause). Such support, if it is given at all, should only ever be temporary and conditional upon reform. Our general policy should be to promote democratic change and the encouragement of free societies wherever possible.
[Rep]

Until 9/11 the USA was a state sponsor of terrorism. The IRA had offices, recruitment and training facilities in the USA through NORAID. Gerry Adams was a visitor to the White House during Sinn Fein's 'bullet and ballot box' phase. The USA didn't care about the numbers of British servicemen and civilians killed during our anti-terrorist operations in parts of the UK.

I've got a medal for serving in the war on terror, the difference is the USA funded the terrorists.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Aardvark:
Until 9/11 the USA was a state sponsor of terrorism. The IRA had offices, recruitment and training facilities in the USA through NORAID. Gerry Adams was a visitor to the White House during Sinn Fein's 'bullet and ballot box' phase. The USA didn't care about the numbers of British servicemen and civilians killed during our anti-terrorist operations in parts of the UK.

I've got a medal for serving in the war on terror, the difference is the USA funded the terrorists.

Good point Aardvark.

And today they are still sponsoring them - nothing has changed.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Unionist:
But when Realpolitik is abandoned and instead the US takes on rogue states and tyrannical regimes you declare that to be wrong too. I don't. I believe that such regimes should be confronted when we have the capacity to do so.

You're right except that the rogue states and tyrannical regime in question is the U.S.A

How can you defend the U.S who have attacked over 40 countries since WWII, none of which have provoked an attack ?

That's right - do you realize it has been decalssified that the "Gulf Of Tonkin" incident (where an Israeli fired on a US ship and they blamed it on Egypt) was a staged event that led to the Vietnam war ?

It's called "false flag" terorrism - the same as 9/11.

Bush's 'Gulf Of Tonkin' Underlines Criminal Desperation For War

"Declassified LBJ presidential tapes(link) discuss how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes and the NSA faked intelligence data(link) to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost."

Ron Paul: U.S. In "Great Danger" Of Staged Gulf Of Tonkin Style Provocation

Originally Posted by Unionist:
As for overthrowing sovereign governments, we need to ask who actually has the sovereignty. In Iraq it was Saddam and his two sons, not the Iraqi people. Sovereignty means nothing in such circumstances. If you elevate sovereignty above everything else you actually end up defending the brutal dictators that you appear to detest.

US and British foreign policy has often wrongly supported brutal regimes in the belief that they are a bulwark against something worse (e.g., going over to the communist cause). Such support, if it is given at all, should only ever be temporary and conditional upon reform. Our general policy should be to promote democratic change and the encouragement of free societies wherever possible.

Sure Saddam was a dictator, but he was a CIA agent and the American's supported him for a long time as well as selling him weapons.

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Book says CIA tried to provoke Saddam to war | World news | The Guardian

To suggest that the U.S want to promote "freedom" and "democracy" around the world is a myth - the Iraqi people are no better off than they were, a lot worse in fact.

Do you really believe the motivation for invading Iraq was "democracy" when they don't even want "democracy" in the U.S or the Western World ?

Or was it about oil and no-bid contracts ?
Certainly we know it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction (ironically now Iran has them too)

Even if you do beleive it is about democracy, how can you reconcile that with the fact that the U.S has supported brutal dictators ?

And if they want to hand over power to the Iraqi's why are they building permanent bases over there ?

The answer is because they have no intention of ever leaving

I'm afraid to say with no disrepect that you are a victim of the mainstream media lies and brainwashing.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
I meant to say Iran is "shiite" not ***** ! :-)

I don't know, I'd say they're both correct... :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Aardvark:
Until 9/11 the USA was a state sponsor of terrorism. The IRA had offices, recruitment and training facilities in the USA through NORAID. Gerry Adams was a visitor to the White House during Sinn Fein's 'bullet and ballot box' phase. The USA didn't care about the numbers of British servicemen and civilians killed during our anti-terrorist operations in parts of the UK.

I've got a medal for serving in the war on terror, the difference is the USA funded the terrorists.

To be fair the British funded unionist paramilitaries.

The USA are I believe only nation to have been found guilty of funding terrorism in an international court.
[Rep]

Anyway they don't have to attack Iran, they may well however.

It is interesting that Israel has nukes but is protected.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Akria:
I don't know, I'd say they're both correct... :-)

So you're delving into a subject matter that isn't global warming..... :-)

Well in that case, please explain why you think Iran is *****

Becuase you saw it on the news ? :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Anyway they don't have to attack Iran, they may well however.

It is interesting that Israel has nukes but is protected.

Isn't it just........ :-)

Of course the mainstream media will never bring up that one in their Iranian damnation agenda....
[Rep]