Rumsfeld found promoting propaganda about terror threats

[Tornado69]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/wgulf402.xml ... Iraq first, Iran next, Venezuela after ? God can't they just let the people live without trying to instill fear in people and having endless wars.

[Mr_Moore]

These people are doing their best to make this a good and safe place to live in and all you do is complain? Shame on you.

[Tornado69]

War is peace
Ignorance is strength
Freedom is slavery

go read up on US foreign policy and the whole reason why they hate the west. It's because the US is over their interferring with them in their area. As Ron Paul said, would you like it if China did that here and was spreading communism? The US being over their and attacking or promoting propaganda to attack countries is what is causing this whole 'war on terror'. This shows they are purposely misleading the public to get the public to back more attacks on other countries

[Mr_Moore]

[ QUOTE ]
War is peace
Ignorance is strength
Freedom is slavery

go read up on US foreign policy and the whole reason why they hate the west. It's because the US is over their interferring with them in their area. As Ron Paul said, would you like it if China did that here and was spreading communism? The US being over their and attacking or promoting propaganda to attack countries is what is causing this whole 'war on terror'. This shows they are purposely misleading the public to get the public to back more attacks on other countries

[/ QUOTE ]

That is so ignorant of you to think this way. Read Giulianis book. The evil doers must be stopped and if you stand in our way or think any different you are against us.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
War is peace
Ignorance is strength
Freedom is slavery

go read up on US foreign policy and the whole reason why they hate the west. It's because the US is over their interferring with them in their area. As Ron Paul said, would you like it if China did that here and was spreading communism? The US being over their and attacking or promoting propaganda to attack countries is what is causing this whole 'war on terror'. This shows they are purposely misleading the public to get the public to back more attacks on other countries

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a significant reason but it's far from the only reason.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/wgulf402.xml ... Iraq first, Iran next, Venezuela after ? God can't they just let the people live without trying to instill fear in people and having endless wars.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Iranian regime is definitively an enemy of the USA, Israel and to a lesser extent, the West; and the Iranian regime does support terror. That said, I think a war with Iran would be a bad idea (actually, a horrible idea)...but...I could be convinced that bombing the crap out of their nuclear program could be a good idea.

[Tornado69]

Iran has quiet a big army and I don't know if China or other countries that get oil from Iran would put up with the US invading Iran. I'm just sick of hearing about terrorism, the war on terror, this that everything like these terrorists are some enourmous threat the the west. These people don't have armies, countries, aren't involved in politics of countries. You can fend off the USSR with 40 thousand nuclear weapons and now the gov't is spreading war propoganda about third world countries being some huge threat to us ? Sorry but I don't buy it and I just wanna live in a world without these created threats but scumbags like Rumsfeld ...

[Taso]

USSR is a little different than say, Iran, in that the USSR wasn't half controlled by insane muslims.

Yes, part of the reason they terrorize us is because we are over there. The other part? It's in their flippin' religion. "slay the disbelievers".

I support Ron Paul, 100%, if only because I think non-interventionism will be a key to reducing taxes. I don't really think that pulling out of the middle-east will end their hatred of Americans.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran has quiet a big army and I don't know if China or other countries that get oil from Iran would put up with the US invading Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know about that but I do think an invasion would be a very bad idea.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just sick of hearing about terrorism, the war on terror, this that everything like these terrorists are some enourmous threat the the west. These people don't have armies, countries, aren't involved in politics of countries. You can fend off the USSR with 40 thousand nuclear weapons and now the gov't is spreading war propoganda about third world countries being some huge threat to us ? Sorry but I don't buy it and I just wanna live in a world without these created threats but scumbags like Rumsfeld ...

[/ QUOTE ]

The threat from Iran is not great but it could possibly become worse. If Iran gets nukes, I don't think the threat to the USA would be nearly as great as the threat to Israel or the threat even to the Arab states.

Iran's regime is truly our enemy and they have supported terrorist groups for a long time and have long held military parades with signs painted on their missiles like "Death To America!" and "Death to Israel!". So their getting nukes would be a bad thing. Iran with nukes would also try to throw its weight around the oil region.

Ron Paul has a good point about Iran not being anything like the danger of the USSR with the USSR's 40K nukes. The USSR was more rational (by our standards) than Iran is, though.

I think the purported threat from Iraq, on which the Iraq war was based, was largely a contrived threat. The threat from Iran is real IMO but that doesn't mean it is a serious threat to the USA. It may well not be a serious threat even if Iran gets nukes, who knows. The threat of Iranian nukes to Israel would be a very real threat though. Israel will HAVE to bomb the nuke sites of Iran...which means the USA will have a role as well, even if it is largely logistics and support.

Of course, If Iran gets bombed, it will probably retaliate, which means that the bombing of the nuke sites may have to be preceded by elimination of Iranian retaliatory and defensive air and missile capabilities, and probably naval capabilities as well. So the whole thing certainly has the potential to erupt into a large war.

I'm not comfortable with any country whose favorite slogan is "Death To America!" getting nukes. Israel, though, has got to be flat-out paranoid of such a thing and for good reason.

IMO Iran's military and nuke sites will likely get bombed, thoroughly and hard.

As for Rumsfeld "creating threats", granted the threat from Iraq was largely created. The threat from Iran is in significant part due to the Iranian government repeatedly saying "Death to America!" and "Death To Israel!" as well as supporting terrorism and Hizbullah. It's almost like these guys actually want to get bombed. They've been saying that crap for many years, and recently their President has made belligerent statements regarding Israel. Do they really want to get bombed? Maybe Russia will give them a last-minute warning that they have intelligence that they WILL get bombed if they keep this up. Or maybe not.

Also, Iran cannot be said to be "not involved in politics of countries". They are up to their eyeballs involved in Iraq, trying to support the Shi'ites over the Sunnis and supporting guerilla warfare against U.S. personnel.

It's all too complicated for me to make a definitive judgment on what should be done.

If we really were to adopt a non-interventionalist policy ALL OVER THE WORLD, the benefits might be so great overall that I might say, who cares if Iran gets nukes: just tell them that they will go FIRST if WE get nuked. Short of a truly non-interventionalist policy, though, my guess is that Iran should not be invaded but probably should have its nuke and missile sites reduced to rubble - and if necessary 90% of its entire air force and navy too.

That may sound confusing or contradictory but I don't think a partially non-interventionalist policy would really work. It would either have to be truly non-interventionalist and comprehensively followed (with resultant immense savings, and great intangible benefits) or discarded for interventionalism as usual. I think the risk of a nuclear Iran to US would probably be manageable although undesirable. The benefits of bringing home troops from all around the world, including massive savings, would probably more than offset the increased risk.

I just don't think a halfway solution regarding Iran, or our overall foreign policy, would work out very well, though.

The Iraq war, too, has been fought in a sort of halfway fashion, as was Vietnam: hasn't the USA learned anything in the last half-century? We don't win wars fought on a halfway basis: we only win wars fought like in WWII.

If we're not justified and willing to fight like that, then we shouldn't go to war at all.

The Iran dilemma is a mess. Israel is a large and very likely pivotal factor, which leads me to bet that Iran will get bombed. Plus, the Iranian regime sort of keeps asking for it, with repeated statements over the years that go well beyond defensiveness to outright bellicosity.

Sorry for the length and unwieldiness of this post but it's late. Thanks for reading.

[Tornado69]

The US started a lot of this though, if you look back to 2002 when they were gearing up for their war in Iraq, the other 2 countries Iran and North Korea were also on that list of enemies and immediately they both started up their nuke programs again to protect themselves from the US. If the US hadn't been in that region being so aggressive they both wouldn't have started up their nuclear facilities.

The western mainstream media constantly alerts the public of these threats and most people just assume we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. You don't think that all these people in the middle east aren't getting the same media treatment that we are getting ? Saying the US is trying to invade them for their oil and takeover their countries and oppress their people and the US is evil and the middle east people are good ? I just think there's 2 sides to every story and the people in the middle east must feel a MUCH greater from us than we do from them. Do they have a right to defend themselves ?