US offering to talk to Iran

[Marla_Singer]

Let's hope the US will be more convincing than Europe in their talk. I'm still a bit skeptic, but it was worth it for the US to take a shot. The only good thing in that story is that obviously all Western powers agree to collaborate on the issue. The only problem comes from China, which seem to consider Iran is not an issue for them.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Quote from Wikipedia about the War of 1812

This proved difficult, and the United States finally declared war on Great Britain in 1812, the first time the U.S. had officially declared war.

Source

All other claims of mine have been backed by previous posters very clearly, so I won't get into those.

 

[blackheart]

Read some more war history...

Mexican American War: Texas is annexed by the United States, and Mexcio declares war on the US because it still believes Texas to be a Mexican vassal.

The border was disputed by Mexico and America after Texas was annexed. Long story short, America built a fort in land claimed by Mexico.

War or 1812: Britain atacked our shipping, and took our ships and sailors captive.

While this was the cause, the main reason for the war was for the hawks in Congress to gain Canada. By the time war was declared, Britain had already revoked restrictions on American shipping and stopped impressment because they needed American supplies to fund their army in Spain.

Spanish American War: Spainish blew up the USS Maine in Havanna Harbor. I've heard that it is more believed today to be a powder discharged, but its never been fully proven, and even if it was, they hardly knew that then.

Most, if not all scholars recognize that if there was a mine (most say not), the Spanish government didn't plant it. And back then when it first happened, no one really knew. The Spanish American war is a classic example of media propeganda, seeing as how the newspapers exerted great pressure for war to free the Cubans from Spanish atrocities.

Vietnam: American ships are attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. We werent the agressors anyways, the North was. We entered that "war" as a French ally.

France was long gone. America was already heavily involved in the area, just not militarily direct. And considering that a taped meeting between General Nguyen Giap and SecDef MacNamara casts a high shadow over whether the attack even occured should be something to note. So it's doubtable that North Vietnamese forces attacked. America stepped in full force to combat communism and prop up an unpopular regime.

Somalia: Wasnt a declared war, and we went in as part of a joint UN force, it wasnt a US endeavor

You're right. It wasn't any sort of war at all.

 

[tomsnowman123]

You're right. It wasn't any sort of war at all.

Not a war, but US troops were the only troops carrying out a full blown military operation, by order of former president Bill Clinton. Between 1,000 and 1,500 Somalian militiamen and civilians lost their lives, and 18 American soldiers died.

 

[eyrei]

We are asking them to comply with the demands that are on the table in their talks with the EU countries and all they get out of it is our presence at the table. Its simply a counter to their letter to Mr. Bush, and a clumsy one at that. We know they will not accept such terms, yet make the offer in an effort to embarass them.

 

[Xshayathiya]

this wasnt a serious offer. They knew full well that Iran would refuse this. This "offer" was made so that if situations escalated they could point back and say "hey, we tried diplomacy."

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Tom i didnt say it was the first time we declared war, and niether did you. I/you said Agressor, as in, the one who attacks first. The US has never waged a war of conquest( the indian wars are a different matter. Now, yes, we got territory out of wars before, but territory was never the cause for war( think Hundred Years' War here), nor have we occupied a defeated nation before, at least not permanently. And dont bring up Iraq, it cant count in this discussion as it hasnt played itself out yet, we dont really know for sure what will become of this, so its best to leave it out.

This argument has been changed since i last posted, too. It has become "the US never wanted to declare war" from "the US was never the agressor." Just because people wanted to declare war doesnt mean anything, it is whether we were the agressor, and we weren't!

 

[tomsnowman123]

Tom i didnt say it was the first time we declared war, and niether did you. I/you said Agressor, as in, the one who attacks first. The US has never waged a war of conquest( the indian wars are a different matter. Now, yes, we got territory out of wars before, but territory was never the cause for war( think Hundred Years' War here), nor have we occupied a defeated nation before, at least not permanently. And dont bring up Iraq, it cant count in this discussion as it hasnt played itself out yet, we dont really know for sure what will become of this, so its best to leave it out.

I never brought up Iraq in this thread, only Vietnam, 1812, and Somalia.

Finally, the 3 definitions of aggresor, as per dictionary.com

ag·gres·sor P Pronunciation Key (-grsr)
n.
One that engages in aggression.


aggressor

n 1: someone who attacks [syn: attacker, assailant, assaulter] 2: a confident assertive person who acts as instigator

I would say that by definition, America attacked, thus America was an aggressor.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

take it in context. You cannot win a war by not attacking, silly. Would you rather we just lay down and let (insert enemy here) run all over us? I know you're a pacifist, but cant you at least try to understand that to do so is even worse than war? Peace, yes, but at what cost?

 

[tomsnowman123]

take it in context. You cannot win a war by not attacking, silly. Would you rather we just lay down and let (insert enemy here) run all over us? I know you're a pacifist, but cant you at least try to understand that to do so is even worse than war? Peace, yes, but at what cost?

Neither Vietnam, Korea, or Iraq were not in self-defense, the US had not been directly attacked by them. We went in and attacked them. Vietnam and Korea to try and weaken the Communist movement, and as for Iraq, the real reasons are hard to say.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think you have short term memory problems, i believe i already adressed this

 

[tomsnowman123]

I think you have short term memory problems, i believe i already adressed this

You tried to justify those attacks, and almost everyone disagreed with you. I am not attacking you personally, I am just saying that almost everyone here agrees we were an aggressor that did not have to go to war in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Korea was UN though, not US.

And everyone disagreed with me because making America the bad guy is the cool thing to do right now. Had we had this argument fifteen years ago, most people here would be singing a different song.

Vietnam, although there is a reason for it ( as there was Iraq), i dont think we ran well, and thus became a problem. The problem is that people know they cannot beat us in a fair fight, so they use gureilla tactics. I read about how Ho Chi Minh was contemplating an invasion of the South, and one of his advisors brought up American involvement. He decided that it was best to not engage us in a true battle, but to use guerilla tactics to fight us in small groups, where our immense firepower could not be used to its greatest effect.

iraq i still think ought to be left out of this. the reason i brought it up a few posts ago ( you seemed offended by my metioning it) was i could see it coming, someone was going to jump into our conversation and throw that in there, im just tired of seeing the jabs at the US everywhere i go. "You shouldnt wander around on internet sites then" yea i know i know

 

[blackheart]

Korea was UN though, not US.

It was mainly US policy and US arms that dictated Korea though.

And everyone disagreed with me because making America the bad guy is the cool thing to do right now. Had we had this argument fifteen years ago, most people here would be singing a different song.

Ah yes let's ignore factual history and blame it on the hippies.

Vietnam, although there is a reason for it ( as there was Iraq), i dont think we ran well, and thus became a problem. The problem is that people know they cannot beat us in a fair fight, so they use gureilla tactics. I read about how Ho Chi Minh was contemplating an invasion of the South, and one of his advisors brought up American involvement. He decided that it was best to not engage us in a true battle, but to use guerilla tactics to fight us in small groups, where our immense firepower could not be used to its greatest effect.

There is no such thing as a "fair fight" in war, get it through yourself. If you were to fight fair in war, that means you're either stupid enough to engage the enemy on equal footing or you're stupid enough to not use your advantages. What the hell is "true battle"? Standing face front from your foe and letting loose a mag on full auto? Really, that's just common sense to NOT engage someone who can beat you in a slugging match in a slugging match.

 

[ThERat]

as much as I am concerned about nuclear weapons (hell, my hometown was full of nuclear warheads during the cold war), but what moral right have we got to say Iran can't have those weapons?
Did the west shred all nuclear weapons? Can't remember that one.

IIRC the Iranian government was democratically elected (just because it is staunchly anti-western and anti-jew doesn't make is less legitimate). I feel pretty uneasy seeing Iran aquiring nuclear weapons, just as I am uneasy about India, Pakistan and whoever else having them. It just takes one nutcase to blow us up.

But, again, USA/UK/France and Isreal have them, so we can't go and tell Iran they are not allowed to do the same. It just fits into that typical western hypocrisy.

USA have long lost all credibility about so called moral values, I guess the Iranian president is playing a nice game with us here...

 

[SupremeC]

Wait a sec. I know its unfair for the US to hog nuclear production but Iran is a country that declared that Israel should be wiped off the map. This is a country that we cannot risk having nuclear weapons. That is justification for them to be stopped.

Russia, a main trading partner even offered to process uranium for its power generation, which was rejected. Some risks cannot be taken.

 

[ThERat]

You don't believe that those rhetorics used by Iran would be actually put into action. Any missile launch by Iran would turn into complete self destruction. No sane person would do that (well, during the Cuban crisis we almost faced that).

What is more likely would be the scenario of terrorists (could be state sponsored as well) acquiring them and using it against someone. However, since there is a lot of nuclear material in this world already (just think of Pakistan or the former Soviet countries), enough to worry. Just imagine a regime change in Pakistan, a president not that pro-western and we are in deep trouble.

The US-lead hypocrypical policies during the cold war (and now during this west versus Arab conflict) have brought us all in deep trouble.

I would feel much better if the US really would stand for better and noble values, but they are not much different from being the biggest bully this planet has seen (at least that's what many people perceive, myself included). What moral right has the US got to tell anyone else what to do.

So far, Iran has not attacked anyone yet, the US however have invaded Iraq on false pretense and a propaganda campaign that was pure evil.

 

[SupremeC]

Well, I'm not sure President Ahmadinejud is sane. Calling for Israel to be wiped off the map and working on nukes at the same time is worrying. Then again, our beloved leader Kim Jung Il hasn't used his ICMB (which is probably outdated by now) so there is hope that Iran won't use nukes.

Our best hope is the fact that it is Ayatollah Khameni who calls the final shots so it may just be a well orchestrated facade to force US to talk. This of course cannot be allowed to happen. Imagine who else would try this little stunt.

Honestly I'm not impressed with Bush's foreign policy. Like you said, if Pakistan were to change to a less pro-western leader things could go very wrong. Giving free techs to India is not going to help the situation there. Iraq was a debacle. I'm sure you can come up with better examples. Damn we are so screwed.

 

[Stylesjl]

IIRC the Iranian government was democratically elected

Wrong. A special unelected body of religous leaders must approve the candidates in advance hence undermining the democratic process because only ultra conservative muslims are allowed

 

[ThERat]

A special unelected body of religous leaders must approve the candidates in advance hence undermining the democratic process because only ultra conservative muslims are allowed

Hey, that sounds almost like the Singapore Presidential election where a 'committee' assesses the suitabilty of potential candidates. This resulted in 2 'elections' of the current president without an actual election
Needless to say he is a mere puppet which in case of Ahmadinejud isn't really true. He does seem pretty scary, I agree.