Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of countries that don't have a nuclear weapon that the US does not "mess" with. These would be countries who are not hostile to the US, its interests or its allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so it's either do what we want you to do or develop a nuclear weapon. That would kind of suck if you don't agree with our interests/policies.

And aren't we hostile to Iran's interests and its allies? Does that give them the right to "mess" with us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the USA is hostile in orientation to Iran's interests and allies, and Iran is hostile in orientation to the USA's interests and allies. About the only thing the Iranian regime has in common with the West is that they want to sell oil and the West wants to buy it.

While the USA is ideologically and tactically wrong in Iraq, Iran's regime is wrong in an even broader and more fundamental sense, in that they support and enforce Shari'a Law with a vengeance and that they wish to expand and export their "Islamic Revolution".

The Iranian regime and its mullahs are truly a retrograde force in the world, which is in direct opposition to nearly every Western ideal of freedom and human and civil rights.

The USA is indeed too imperialistic and meddlesome abroad. Iran, if it had the power of the USA, would be far, far worse.

I have before posted some shocking statements by Ahmadinejad, and his predecessor, Rafsanjani.

Statements made by their spiritual/political predecessors, and their current ideological sympaticos and allies (such as the leader of Hezbollah), are downright frightening. These guys are literally the modern day equivalents of Hitler in terms of what they want to do to the Jews.

Iran's regime is correct in feeling potentially threatened by the USA. So too was Hitler correct in feeling threatened by the USA. Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani and Nasrallah are Hitler's modern-day standard-bearers, and the primary difference is only the religious component.

In a new thread I will be posting a link to a video quoting and describing the aims and ideology of Iran's regime and mullahs, and their spiritual predecessors and allies.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're going to get anyone arguing with you that Iran's political leaders are good guys. My only point is that they probably feel the same way about us. They probably think that we are an evil power trying to spread our ideology around the world. It seems silly to think that they wouldn't try to stop us however they can.

I also think it's hilarious that such a big deal is made about Iran's aid to militia in Iraq. They obviously have an interest in Iraq just as we do. Why are we allowed to train and give arms to who we want to win while nobody else can do the same? I understand that we all think that we are "more right" than Iran, but it seems ludicrous to claim that they can't try to affect the outcome of the conflict as much as we can. It's just such a double standard.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you're going to get anyone arguing with you that Iran's political leaders are good guys. My only point is that they probably feel the same way about us.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the bad guys think we're bad guys, that must make us good guys. Anyway this is the same old tired, stupid, and bankrupt BS moral equivalency argument that get's trumped up often. The United States government is morally equivalent to the Iran government, the government that still has women stoned among other oppression of women; executes homosexuals and has a leader that claims no homosexuals exist in Iran; generally speaking is a leader of holocaust denial; brutally suppresses political dissent; etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of countries that don't have a nuclear weapon that the US does not "mess" with. These would be countries who are not hostile to the US, its interests or its allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so it's either do what we want you to do or develop a nuclear weapon. That would kind of suck if you don't agree with our interests/policies.

And aren't we hostile to Iran's interests and its allies? Does that give them the right to "mess" with us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the USA is hostile in orientation to Iran's interests and allies, and Iran is hostile in orientation to the USA's interests and allies. About the only thing the Iranian regime has in common with the West is that they want to sell oil and the West wants to buy it.

While the USA is ideologically and tactically wrong in Iraq, Iran's regime is wrong in an even broader and more fundamental sense, in that they support and enforce Shari'a Law with a vengeance and that they wish to expand and export their "Islamic Revolution".

The Iranian regime and its mullahs are truly a retrograde force in the world, which is in direct opposition to nearly every Western ideal of freedom and human and civil rights.

The USA is indeed too imperialistic and meddlesome abroad. Iran, if it had the power of the USA, would be far, far worse.

I have before posted some shocking statements by Ahmadinejad, and his predecessor, Rafsanjani.

Statements made by their spiritual/political predecessors, and their current ideological sympaticos and allies (such as the leader of Hezbollah), are downright frightening. These guys are literally the modern day equivalents of Hitler in terms of what they want to do to the Jews.

Iran's regime is correct in feeling potentially threatened by the USA. So too was Hitler correct in feeling threatened by the USA. Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani and Nasrallah are Hitler's modern-day standard-bearers, and the primary difference is only the religious component.

In a new thread I will be posting a link to a video quoting and describing the aims and ideology of Iran's regime and mullahs, and their spiritual predecessors and allies.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're going to get anyone arguing with you that Iran's political leaders are good guys. My only point is that they probably feel the same way about us. They probably think that we are an evil power trying to spread our ideology around the world. It seems silly to think that they wouldn't try to stop us however they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but what must be realized is that their ideology is WRONG and EVIL. It is irrelevant that they think the same about ours. It's not like our "they think wrongly" and their "you think wrongly" have equal validity. Of course they want to spread and enforce Shari'a. I don't see the point of saying that "they think the same way about us". So what? It's not like the main problem is what we think of each other.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think it's hilarious that such a big deal is made about Iran's aid to militia in Iraq. They obviously have an interest in Iraq just as we do. Why are we allowed to train and give arms to who we want to win while nobody else can do the same? I understand that we all think that we are "more right" than Iran, but it seems ludicrous to claim that they can't try to affect the outcome of the conflict as much as we can. It's just such a double standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the USA should even be in Iraq, but that's probably not really germane to this discussion. Both sides are trying to effect their goals. The USA is doing so in a misguided fashion but at least the USA has good (if unachievable) goals in Iraq. Iran has bad goals because their system and ideology is bad. You have to be willing to make a value judgment and say that human and civil rights (Western style) are good whereas Shari'a is bad. Iran's regime wants bad things (though they think it is good).

It's not about who "has the right" to try to spread their ideology, but whose ideology is at core good or evil. Hanging gays for being gay and hanging teenage girls is bad. Many laws under Shari'a, oppressing women, denying women and religious minorities equal rights, giving Muslims civil rights ABOVE non-Muslims: those are EVIL laws. The Shari'a is EVIL. Naziism was evil. Laws and beliefs to oppress Jews are EVIL. Iran's regime is working towards evil things, though deluded as they are, they think it good.

The USA is doing evil things in Iraq, but not because the underlying belief system of the USA is evil. Rather, the Neo-Cons have developed doctrines and philosophies that are misguided and unworkable, which has led to doing evil. Democractizing Iraq will not free Iraq; it will only free and empower the Shi'ite majority to defeat and oppress the Sunnis and Kurds. Democracy in the Middle East will generally empower Shari'a, not free the Arabs to enjoy Western style human and civil rights. The Neo-Cons had a quixotic dream, and trying to implement it by force was (and still is) a huge error.

I guess my point is that the fact that both sides have similarly distasteful thoughts about each other is largely irrelevant, because the problem is not about just getting along. The problem is a fundamental clash of underlying ideologies and values. So it is a bad thing that Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, two genocidally-aimed organizations. It is a bad thing that Iran is trying to kill Americans in Iraq. It would be a bad thing if Iran's regime gains any more power.

Thanks for reading.

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You go ahead and pray for muscle. Muscle only lasts for so long. There WILL come a point in time when the US is not the biggest kid on the block, and when that time comes, your children and/or grand children will most assuredly hope that the current superpower is more congenial than you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bet they won't be! Might is right. All great civilizations in history have had a strong conquering military. Our prosperity has made liberals soft and emotional. Life ain't fair. You want everyone to sit around, hold hands and smoke pot in harmony. It isn't happening. The world is full of conflicting views and desires, eat or be eaten.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you're saying human civilization hasn't advanced, and will never advance?

I think you're 100% wrong. IF mankind is to survive, human nature will have to continue to evolve. We'll never make large strides in the future if our primary concern is which country can kick the most ass.

Don't confuse me for a pacifist. If someone starts a confrontation and there are no other good options, you fight. That's the world we live in right now, but I don't believe that's the way the world will always be.

But I will smoke some pot if you have some.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think it's hilarious that such a big deal is made about Iran's aid to militia in Iraq. They obviously have an interest in Iraq just as we do. Why are we allowed to train and give arms to who we want to win while nobody else can do the same? I understand that we all think that we are "more right" than Iran, but it seems ludicrous to claim that they can't try to affect the outcome of the conflict as much as we can. It's just such a double standard.


[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that Iran is actively targeting, i.e. killing US Forces in Iraq. To date, we have not actively targeted Iranian forces in Iran. If you think its hilarious that the result of that is that US Soldiers are dying, I guess thats your right but seems either naive or you don't care much about the value of life.

To the overall point of your paragraph above, does Iran have the right to influence the situation in Iraq? Absolutely. Does that right extend to military aid and direct action? No, thats called an act of war.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also think it's hilarious that such a big deal is made about Iran's aid to militia in Iraq. They obviously have an interest in Iraq just as we do. Why are we allowed to train and give arms to who we want to win while nobody else can do the same? I understand that we all think that we are "more right" than Iran, but it seems ludicrous to claim that they can't try to affect the outcome of the conflict as much as we can. It's just such a double standard.


[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that Iran is actively targeting, i.e. killing US Forces in Iraq. To date, we have not actively targeted Iranian forces in Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true; I think U.S. forces captured and released some Iranian advisors in Iran. None have been targeted and killed to my knowledge.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think its hilarious that the result of that is that US Soldiers are dying, I guess thats your right but seems either naive or you don't care much about the value of life.

To the overall point of your paragraph above, does Iran have the right to influence the situation in Iraq? Absolutely. Does that right extend to military aid and direct action? No, thats called an act of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran has sort of been at war with the USA ever since Khomeini's Islamic Revolution. I'm still somewhat bemused and amazed that, in addition to support for terrorism, they have been getting away for years with parading missiles with the slogans "Death To America!" and "Death To Israel!" emblazoned on them. In my darker and less patient moments I sometimes wonder why that is not cause to destroy their regime.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]



I don't think you're going to get anyone arguing with you that Iran's political leaders are good guys. My only point is that they probably feel the same way about us. They probably think that we are an evil power trying to spread our ideology around the world. It seems silly to think that they wouldn't try to stop us however they can.

I also think it's hilarious that such a big deal is made about Iran's aid to militia in Iraq. They obviously have an interest in Iraq just as we do. Why are we allowed to train and give arms to who we want to win while nobody else can do the same? I understand that we all think that we are "more right" than Iran, but it seems ludicrous to claim that they can't try to affect the outcome of the conflict as much as we can. It's just such a double standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. This seems like such a simple concept. We think we are right, they think they are right.

If I were Iran I sure as hell would want a nuke available in case something like this current war was brewing.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think the USA should even be in Iraq, but that's probably not really germane to this discussion. Both sides are trying to effect their goals. The USA is doing so in a misguided fashion but at least the USA has good (if unachievable) goals in Iraq. Iran has bad goals because their system and ideology is bad. You have to be willing to make a value judgment and say that human and civil rights (Western style) are good whereas Shari'a is bad. Iran's regime wants bad things (though they think it is good).

It's not about who "has the right" to try to spread their ideology, but whose ideology is at core good or evil. Hanging gays for being gay and hanging teenage girls is bad. Many laws under Shari'a, oppressing women, denying women and religious minorities equal rights, giving Muslims civil rights ABOVE non-Muslims: those are EVIL laws. The Shari'a is EVIL. Naziism was evil. Laws and beliefs to oppress Jews are EVIL. Iran's regime is working towards evil things, though deluded as they are, they think it good.

The USA is doing evil things in Iraq, but not because the underlying belief system of the USA is evil. Rather, the Neo-Cons have developed doctrines and philosophies that are misguided and unworkable, which has led to doing evil. Democractizing Iraq will not free Iraq; it will only free and empower the Shi'ite majority to defeat and oppress the Sunnis and Kurds. Democracy in the Middle East will generally empower Shari'a, not free the Arabs to enjoy Western style human and civil rights. The Neo-Cons had a quixotic dream, and trying to implement it by force was (and still is) a huge error.

I guess my point is that the fact that both sides have similarly distasteful thoughts about each other is largely irrelevant, because the problem is not about just getting along. The problem is a fundamental clash of underlying ideologies and values. So it is a bad thing that Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, two genocidally-aimed organizations. It is a bad thing that Iran is trying to kill Americans in Iraq. It would be a bad thing if Iran's regime gains any more power.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is that the international rules of engagement can't be different for our two countries. I understand that we all think Iran is an evil force. This does not mean that we are allowed to wage war and they are not. Because we think they are evil doesn't make it okay when we do something and them wrong when they take the same action.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

So the bad guys think we're bad guys, that must make us good guys. Anyway this is the same old tired, stupid, and bankrupt BS moral equivalency argument that get's trumped up often. The United States government is morally equivalent to the Iran government, the government that still has women stoned among other oppression of women; executes homosexuals and has a leader that claims no homosexuals exist in Iran; generally speaking is a leader of holocaust denial; brutally suppresses political dissent; etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

We shouldn't be subject to different law and rules. What if someone decides that we are the bad guys? Does that give them the right to attack us? Why not?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also think it's hilarious that such a big deal is made about Iran's aid to militia in Iraq. They obviously have an interest in Iraq just as we do. Why are we allowed to train and give arms to who we want to win while nobody else can do the same? I understand that we all think that we are "more right" than Iran, but it seems ludicrous to claim that they can't try to affect the outcome of the conflict as much as we can. It's just such a double standard.


[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that Iran is actively targeting, i.e. killing US Forces in Iraq. To date, we have not actively targeted Iranian forces in Iran. If you think its hilarious that the result of that is that US Soldiers are dying, I guess thats your right but seems either naive or you don't care much about the value of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop being ridiculous. Implying that I enjoy the death of our soldiers is obviously offensive. Nobody wants to see Americans die, get wounded, or injured. But that's not the point. The point is that we shouldn't expect to have certain privileges over other countries simply because we believe we're in the right.

To my knowledge, Iran is giving military aid to militia but they are not actually engaging with our forces. Were Iranian forces found attacking us or were weapons traced back to Iran? Those are two different things.

[ QUOTE ]

To the overall point of your paragraph above, does Iran have the right to influence the situation in Iraq? Absolutely. Does that right extend to military aid and direct action? No, thats called an act of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we have the right to extend military aid and direct action in regions in which we have an interest? Does the country/force damaged by our aid have the right to declare war on us? I'm just trying to point out that we can't have it both ways. If we want to say that what Iran is doing is an act of war against us, then we have to call it an act of war when we do it as well.