What is the US up to with regard to Iran?

[Socrates99]

But yet the al-Saud Family, Syngman Rhee, Chiang Kai-Shek, Mbutu Sese-Seko, Hosni Mubarak, the Pahlavi Shahs, Lon Nol, Ngo Dinh Diem, Nguyen Van Thieu, Ferdinand Marcos, Effrain Rios Montt, Oscar Humberto Mejia Victores, Adolfo Arnaldo Majano Ramos, Jaime Abdul Gutierrez Avendano, the Samoza Family, Manuel Antonio Noriega (at least initially), Augustin Pinoche, Raul Trujillio, Fulgencio Batatista, and Francois "Papadoc" Duvalier - and even a post-WW2 Francisco Franco, all of which were about as horrid, bloody-handed, brutal, human-rights-abusing, criminal tyrants, were not only acceptable to keep in power by the West, but supported, funded, armed, and entrenched and protected from removal from power against their own people. Here is where ANY virtue or ethics breaks into utter self-serving hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy in this issue, and why I do not believe in the Western "mandate" to hold Third World tyrants accountable with any sincerity.

That list, Donald Trump won in part because of his non intervention rhetoric during the campaign. Hillary was known to be a massive war hawk. Theres a reason why Tulsi Gabbard is getting a huge cold shoulder from the media. If her message hit a big enough platform she could surge.

Americans aren't as dumb as people think. Our education system is a defunded joke but we do know unending wars like Afghanistan are partially to blame for bad roads, crumbling bridges and sketchy water supplies across the nation. Bleeding hearts and Ayn Rand acolytes both agree fixing that stuff is more important than dropping good Christian democracy bombs on umpteen different countries because the CIA says "ooh, bad guy, bad guy!"

 

[Lexicus]

What do you see as the best path for NK?

What do you see as the best path for NK? A benevolent US bombing campaign for "regime change"??

 

[Birdjaguar]

If a leader acts badly enough for outside military intervention is seldom decided by the people but more often a consent-manufacturing political machine. We should use an international democratic assembly for these issues. The closest thing we have is the UN. But oh wait it’s non-functional in this regard… I wonder why that is so? What major nations could it be to halt democracy while using the democracy argument to blatantly and shamelessly further their non-democratically founded interests? I’m so confused! Who could it be?

You do understand that America supported among others the Al Qaida rebels in Syria. The same ones who flew the planes into the WTC some years back. The very ones you still drone innocent civilians to death to catch in theatres not far away.

Are you sure you are not missing any names there in your list btw? Got enough names there, have you?

I am not here to defend the US foreign policy. It has been quite terrible in the past. Feel free to any other names to the list of bad guys. There are a couple of questions here:
How should the world deal with leaders who act terribly towards their own people?
How should the world respond to leaders who actively spread hate and fear among other countries?
Is drone warfare better or worse than more conventional warfare to achieve ones military goals?

 

[Birdjaguar]

What do you see as the best path for NK? A benevolent US bombing campaign for "regime change"??

Me personally or for the US?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Off to a couple of meetings, back later.

 

[Lexicus]

Me personally or for the US?

My question's meaning is intended to be the same as yours. In what sense are you asking others this same question?

I will say that US policy toward North Korea makes a lot of sense if we understand the goal of US policy as providing a continuous justification for lavish armaments contracts granted to US firms.

 

[red_elk]

Don't forget that counties like, Turkey, Russia, NK, etc. are the allowing the these terrible leaders to rule.

Terrible or not, it's their leaders and it's their people's business to decide what to do with them.
When US decides to do "regime change" abroad, it doesn't care how terrible regime is, it merely removes disloyal leaders and installs loyal ones wherever possible.

Do you want the world to be a better place? If so, how would you do that?

Better world would be where international law exists and everybody obeys it. But this is utopia.
More realistic alternative is a multipolar world where noone has monopoly to use force against other countries without serious consequences. This hopefully would limit imperialism.
What USA can do now, is to fix its economy and government system. Stop threatening others and behaving like mad gorilla in international affairs. Then other countries may believe that you are the good guys and may follow your example.

If you don't like Putin and want to reduce his approval among Russians, your mass-media should limit their anti-Russian rhetoric, which only reinforces Russians siege mentality. But if you trust Russian people to elect their leader, you may not like the one who will come to replace Putin.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But similar situations exist today. Why fuss about Kim Jong-un and Bashir Assad and paternalistic responsibility to do something when Mohammed bin Salmon al-Saud (you said ALL the sponsored tyrants I listed were dead - I listed the al-Sauds as a family) still get money, arms, and support to be the most politically and socially backward and barbaric regime on Earth and stay in power as such, and Donald Trump doesn't believe the Crown Prince and Prince Regent should be investigated for ordering the killing of a Saudi journalist critical of his government in the Saudi embassy of a NATO nation. With allies like Saudi Arabia, you don't need enemies (but you get them anyways)! So, what REALLY has been learned?

I don't think it's a matter of actually learning, and I suspect you don't believe that either.

I suspect the minds governing the US over the years are aware of this just as we are, probably much more so. If we're to "learn" anything, it's not to believe the stated motivations because they're wildly inconsistent with how the west (mostly US in recent years) has acted.

Another piece of evidence is the overt power grabs/human rights violations US government/media just straight up ignores completely. The arms dealing makes it look worse, but it's bad enough to state "we're doing x because y" and then ignoring many instances of y.

 

[Ironsided]

I am not here to defend the US foreign policy. It has been quite terrible in the past. Feel free to any other names to the list of bad guys.

I’ll give you a hint...

How should the world deal with leaders who act terribly towards their own people?

The world should denounce leaders like Bush, Obama and Trump and should work to dissolve aggressive pacts like NATO who demands their and other countries sons and daughters to die for “greater” people’s greed.

How should the world respond to leaders who actively spread hate and fear among other countries?

The world should speak up against the US and call the government illegal and demand that Guaido take over.

Is drone warfare better or worse than more conventional warfare to achieve ones military goals?

It’s as bad, just more cowardly.

------
If you still don't get the hint, and I'm not sure with you - it's exactly what red elk said - feed your head.

 

[Birdjaguar]

My question's meaning is intended to be the same as yours. In what sense are you asking others this same question?

I will say that US policy toward North Korea makes a lot of sense if we understand the goal of US policy as providing a continuous justification for lavish armaments contracts granted to US firms.

Of course, usually, one's goals direct one's actions or one's actions, make one's goals manifest. Arms deals are a huge world wide problem and lots of countries want to be in that game. Not only do they generate sales, they tie nations to their arms source and give that source lots of powerful leverage over the customer. I'm not sure how you see the arms sales connection to NK. The folks most at risk from NK live in SK and I think it is a real risk. Because of that, I think the leadership for responding to NK and KIM should fall to SK and not the US. As soon as SK asked us to leave the border zone, I think we should.

Terrible or not, it's their leaders and it's their people's business to decide what to do with them.
When US decides to do "regime change" abroad, it doesn't care how terrible regime is, it merely removes disloyal leaders and installs loyal ones wherever possible.

Better world would be where international law exists and everybody obeys it. But this is utopia.
More realistic alternative is a multipolar world where noone has monopoly to use force against other countries without serious consequences. This hopefully would limit imperialism.
What USA can do now, is to fix its economy and government system. Stop threatening others and behaving like mad gorilla in international affairs. Then other countries may believe that you are the good guys and may follow your example.

If you don't like Putin and want to reduce his approval among Russians, your mass-media should limit their anti-Russian rhetoric, which only reinforces Russians siege mentality. But if you trust Russian people to elect their leader, you may not like the one who will come to replace Putin.

I certainly agree with self determination as a great rule, but is that realistic in NK? If it is not, should we just ignore Kim's rule and treat him and his nation like we treat other countries? You appear to be condoning NK slave camps as acceptable as long as no one actively rebels.

Do you also condemn the Russia attempts to subvert and control the government of Austria? Their weapon was money rather than guns, but the results they wanted were the same: control of the the country's leadership.

Your multi-polar world with equal power spread across all nations, would be a nice goal, but it is unlikely given the economic imbalance built into world affairs. That economic imbalance is not going away. In fact just in the past few days, China has decided to weaponize its near monopoly on rare earth minerals in its trade talks with the US. Economic power resides in nations with large urbanized populations that produce and consume quality goods. That economic power almost always translates into political power. Such power is not given up lightly.

If Putin kept his nose out of other people's business, I would be less concerned about him. Russia is economically weak and Putin is trying to use other means to lay claim to political power and restore the clout of the old USSR at its peak.

I’ll give you a hint...
The world should denounce leaders like Bush, Obama and Trump and should work to dissolve aggressive pacts like NATO who demands their and other countries sons and daughters to die for “greater” people’s greed.

The world should speak up against the US and call the government illegal and demand that Guaido take over.

It’s as bad, just more cowardly.

If you still don't get the hint, and I'm not sure with you - it's exactly what red elk said - feed your head.

And when you create that power vacuum, how and by whom will it be filled?

Are you saying that the US should unseat Maduro and replace him?

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not sure how you see the arms sales connection to NK.

I'm talking about domestic arms, not exports. And the connection is, we need to pretend there's some threat from North Korea in order to justify the existence of all the grown-up toys our military gets to play with.

I certainly agree with self determination as a great rule, but is that realistic in NK? If it is not, should we just ignore Kim's rule and treat him and his nation like we treat other countries? You appear to be condoning NK slave camps as acceptable as long as no one actively rebels.

Treating Kim's country like other countries is the best way of undermining the domestic justifications for Kim's continued rule. Some Koreans still remember us bombing their country back in the '50s.

I think most Koreans want, at the very least, a peace process and normalization of relations.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm talking about domestic arms, not exports. And the connection is, we need to pretend there's some threat from North Korea in order to justify the existence of all the grown-up toys our military gets to play with.

Treating Kim's country like other countries is the best way of undermining the domestic justifications for Kim's continued rule. Some Koreans still remember us bombing their country back in the '50s.

I think most Koreans want, at the very least, a peace process and normalization of relations.

The military doesn't need a NK "threat" to ask for more money and new programs. Enemies come and go, but wanting new toys is an on going, ever present part of their budget requests.

How does treating NK like France or Germany undermine Kim's powerful hold on his enslaved people? Do we have any recent examples of regimes like NK's evolving peacefully into something less severe without a change in leadership? Are there even any other nations as repressive as NK?

When you say "Koreans" which ones are you talking about?

 

[Lexicus]

How does treating NK like France or Germany

A lot of space between the current, like, literal de jure war and this

When you say "Koreans" which ones are you talking about?

South Koreans, of course, I don't know if the North Koreans have been, er, reliably polled...

 

[Birdjaguar]

A lot of space between the current, like, literal de jure war and this

South Koreans, of course, I don't know if the North Koreans have been, er, reliably polled...

So how should we treat NK?

I'd let SK lead the NK relations effort and we just follow their lead or not participate.

 

[Patine]

If you still don't get the hint, and I'm not sure with you - it's exactly what red elk said - feed your head.

I am not here to defend the US foreign policy. It has been quite terrible in the past. Feel free to any other names to the list of bad guys. There are a couple of questions here:
How should the world deal with leaders who act terribly towards their own people?
How should the world respond to leaders who actively spread hate and fear among other countries?
Is drone warfare better or worse than more conventional warfare to achieve ones military goals?

So, who will pressure or strongarm the U.S., with one of the five worst human rights records in the First World (and, below Rwanda and the Philippines, which are Third World Nations, on specifically women's right and real opportunities) and among the five most corrupt and rigged and least accountable and transparent political systems in the First World, and the greatest disparity of wealth in the First World- more akin in that area to Mexico, Brazil, or India, to clean up their act, in VERY, LONG-NEEDED ways, internally, may I ask?

 

[Birdjaguar]

So, who will pressure or strongarm the U.S., with one of the five worst human rights records in the First World (and, below Rwanda and the Philippines, which are Third World Nations, on specifically women's right and real opportunities) and among the five most corrupt and rigged and least accountable and transparent political systems in the First World, and the greatest disparity of wealth in the First World- more akin in that area to Mexico, Brazil, or India, to clean up their act, in VERY, LONG-NEEDED ways, internally, may I ask?

I see you prefer to ask questions rather than answer them.
In case you missed them:

• How should the world deal with leaders who act terribly towards their own people?
• How should the world respond to leaders who actively spread hate and fear among other countries?
• Is drone warfare better or worse than more conventional warfare to achieve ones military goals?

Currently, there is no country in the world capable of taking the US to task over its internal issues and failures. That is left to us, the citizens of the US. We do have the power to do so. We just have to find the will.

Which countries in the world do find are the best exemplars of all the things the US is doing badly?

Where do you live?

 

[Patine]

I see you prefer to ask questions rather than answer them.
In case you missed them:

• How should the world deal with leaders who act terribly towards their own people?
• How should the world respond to leaders who actively spread hate and fear among other countries?
• Is drone warfare better or worse than more conventional warfare to achieve ones military goals?

Currently, there is no country in the world capable of taking the US to task over its internal issues and failures. That is left to us, the citizens of the US. We do have the power to do so. We just have to find the will.

Which countries in the world do find are the best exemplars of all the things the US is doing badly?

Where do you live?

I think that paternalistic intervention to help oppressed peoples from their own leaders (leaders who often were already installed, or came to power taking advantage of, previous paternalistic foreign intervention in the first place) is becoming a fool's game of "whack-a-hole," and one that is NEVER ending well, and only making these nations' worse off in the long-term, increasing anti-Western animosity globally, and leading to the creation, traction, and recruitment appeal of groups labelled as "terrorists" (of which pretty ALL such groups' since the end of WW2's very existence traces to intervention and meddling by the major powers and responses made to them in the first place). I think this is the REAL lesson that yet needs to be learned - and embraced, and foreign policy drastically changed to show it has been learned from.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think that paternalistic intervention to help oppressed peoples from their own leaders (leaders who often were already installed, or came to power taking advantage of, previous paternalistic foreign intervention in the first place) is becoming a fool's game of "whack-a-hole," and one that is NEVER ending well, and only making these nations' worse off in the long-term, increasing anti-Western animosity globally, and leading to the creation, traction, and recruitment appeal of groups labelled as "terrorists" (of which pretty ALL such groups' since the end of WW2's very existence traces to intervention and meddling by the major powers and responses made to them in the first place). I think this is the REAL lesson that yet needs to be learned - and embraced, and foreign policy drastically changed to show it has been learned from.

Good to know that you support folks like Kim. And you also refrain from condemning Putin for participating in exactly what you decry the US doing. So rather talk about stuff what you actually like to do is spout off you complaints about the bad job everyone is doing without any actual contribution.

 

[Patine]

Good to know that you support folks like Kim. And you also refrain from condemning Putin for participating in exactly what you decry the US doing. So rather talk about stuff what you actually like to do is spout off you complaints about the bad job everyone is doing without any actual contribution.

Trying to twist what I've said into something completely contrary as a form of disingenuous rhetorical attack. Tactics worthy of such toxic, cancerous harbingers of lies as Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter. I detest having words and intentions put in my mouth, especially so clumsily...

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think that paternalistic intervention to help oppressed peoples from their own leaders ... is becoming a fool's game ... and one that is NEVER ending well, and only making these nations' worse off in the long-term..... I think this is the REAL lesson that yet needs to be learned - and embraced, and foreign policy drastically changed to show it has been learned from.

That is what you said without the parenthetical parts.

Trying to twist what I've said into something completely contrary as a form of disingenuous rhetorical attack. Tactics worthy of such toxic, cancerous harbingers of lies as Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter. I detest having words and intentions put in my mouth, especially so clumsily...

Seems like you see no reason to take any action towards NK. I don't see any twisting of your words. You said intervention makes things worse. When you say things like that in a discussion about NK, it leads me to believe that you think things there are good enough. Your refusal to directly answer a question about what to do with that situation just reinforces the idea that you support Kim and he should be left alone. It was a chance for you to offer up something more than vitriol towards the US. That tells me you have nothing to offer that could be discussed.

My "tactic" is responding to your complaints, asking you questions and repeating your words and responses, or lack there of, back to you and trying to have a discussion. As I said earlier, it is very easy to complain about stuff, but doing so without offering solutions is a waste of time. And finally, I only called you out for your posting behavior and you have resorted to name calling and trying to associate me with right wing blowhards. I am not offended; it is just more bad posting on your part.