ParanoiA

Why is it any of your business what Iran is doing? "What is the end state we seek"? At the risk of misinterpreting your Iranian citizenship status, where do you get the authority to ask that question? You're asking about diplomatic solutions to military aggression. Iran wants nukes. They want it for offense, defense, the whole nine yards. Diplomacy is exactly what they want, because anything less than "muscle" can't stop them. American policy has fueled this issue. Anti-american psyche continues to poison the issue and I believe it will cause folks to cut off their noses to spite their faces. There is an international push to stop Iran, but they all feel dirty since they're standing next to us...

And that "UN" painted on the side of their armored vehicles and tanks is just a figment of my imagination huh? Yes, you have nations deploying forces "under the framework of the UN" - while our constitution states that our forces should be deployed under the framework of the US - which means congress, not other foreign governments. That's where the concern for sovereignty comes in. It's not an outright sell out - it's mushy, gray and corruptive - even worse. We have no business cooperating in policing the world. It's not any more justified than being an aggressive imperialist. Best to lead and spread freedom by persuasion and example.

Oh, I do blame my own government. That's the position I'm arguing from. And that's part of my reasoning for blaming them. I don't blame the UN for anything actually. My argument is from the perspective that we shouldn't be part of the UN in any military capacity. Your other points are valid as well. Ultimately, it goes against the principles and the moral obligation that we owe to our countrymen over all others to police the world with or without the UN. Our only cooperative relationship should be on humanitarian matters that doesn't involve our military, but "membership dues" are out of the question. I suppose if you want to convince the people here to cough up the cash that's cool, but I can't agree with robbing our citizens to be a part of this club. Sorry.

No, they're going to hate you for recommending it - they're already used to me...

Yes, I really want a book. For several reasons. Mainly because I enjoy reading a book over a screen and I like the portability - I read alot at night in bed, as well as on break time at work. Also, I want my kids to read it. I want them to appreciate the story of how our government was founded. Thanks for the link. That looks promising, but there are no reviews or any summary so I'll search for it on google and see what it really covers. That's been the problem so far. I'll find a good title that sounds like it's what I'm looking for, then I'll dig into the details and find out it's geared in a different direction. Edit: Hey, this isn't bad. Here's the full text: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/mclaughlin/chus.htm Thanks IA...

Ok, I don't mind saying I'm just freaking frustrated as hell here. I don't understand why I can't seem to find a book on the story of our constitution. Seems real damn simple to me. But I find books, and I mean hundreds, on everything about that period, or each individual person, or the military conquests and blah blah blah, except for the basic story of the birth of our government. WTF? You know...the federalist papers...continental congresses...the articles of confederation...the debates...and finally the constitution - the basic story of this process and the events that drove it. How obvious is that? Do I have to buy an american history textbook for 100 hundred bucks and rip out the section from 1773 to 1788? Geez, I would have thought I'd have a hard time picking which one to get...instead I can't find a single book that covers this story. Ideas anyone?

No I'm saying it's okay to support them with the wealth provided by volunteers, folks that have been persuaded to give up their money for your UN cause. And I'm saying I would only contribute to that cause if we're actually going to DO something. If I'm to sit and listen to everyone cry and moan and not DO anything about it, then it's a waste of time and clearly serves for therapeutic reasons only.

This is the capacity of the UN I appreciate. And I agree, I'm not going to throw corruption in their face, although it is quite a legitimate negative. I would like to see our private sector get involved here. To force others to contribute their money to our causes, is unethical - which is what is happening when we tax our countrymen and then use their money for stuff like this. Instead, persuasion should be used to gain funds to contribute to this effort. And I would be proud of that involvement, as long as it's short of military obligation.

Good question. Idealistically, none. About as much right as I have to break into my neighbor's house and destroy his Russian assault rifle. But then again, if he's been spouting off about wiping out the people down the street, I'm not so sure anyone's going to "legitimately" complain if I do that. Also what about the other direction? What right does Iran have to introduce a technology so dangerous to mankind - not just Iran - when they don't have the maturity proven to handle it, maintain it? And surely you don't believe MAD is as effective on martyr driven theological socieities? And then lastly, what rights are a nation afforded that it doesn't earn? On the international stage, we aren't under one order, so we get our rights by implied force. Ethically, I get your point, and I agree. But I can't say there would never be a situation where pragmatism outweights ideology and denying nuclear possession is imperative.

I understand the intent, but "fighting forces" means committing other people's kids' lives for a foreign morality set. Our primary obligation is to our people, not to enforce ethics decided on by a group of foreign powers. If our soldiers are to go into combat, even potential combat, it should not be under any other flag or command than america and under no other order than directly from our congress or people. Geez, their original title was United Nations Fighting Forces...peace-keeping you say? (actually, that's a cheap shot because it really wasn't the UN then, but I did find it amusing, please forgive)

No kidding. We resumed/initiated war based on United Nations violations. These weren't US terms given to Iraq, but UN terms. That was the face used to square off with Saddam up until our unilateral action. I just can't go along with the idea of joining a prealigned group with military implications. That's just wrong right on the surface. War and alliances should be based on current merit with respect to the situation, in my opinion. In fact, I was wondering today why the framers left declaration of war to the congress rather than directly from the people. Actually, I guess I can see why then, but how about now? Should we not leave the decision of war up to the people? Are we afraid that people will prove to be ultimately far more idealistic (ie...dangerously pacifist), while legislators tend toward pragmatism (ie...national security)?

I completely agree. But with the two party system already in power, I don't know how we could make it happen. Interesting link, I hadn't read that before, but it makes total sense.

Why should we give a crap what they think?

So you believe it's reasonable to win an unprecedented war without any set backs or mistakes? I don't believe so. We haven't fought a single war without set backs and mistakes. That includes the ones we won. In fact, if you dig into the particulars of our past wars, sheer luck is responsible for many a victory. Most of our wars have been expensive, and I'm not talking about money.

Did I read that correctly...that Iran suspended regular "Death to America" chants after 9/11? Surely I read that wrong.

True. But anything short of not handling Iraq, is going to be plagued with errors. That's life. Not allowed in politics. But it's still reality. I'm really worn down on the whole "mishandling of Iraq" routine. This ridiculous mentallity that somehow our leaders are supposed to execute everything perfectly, lest they be a complete inept idiot. So, we put these overblown expectations on our leaders (for partisan reasons mind you), and then if they fail, which is what we set them up for, then we pretend like they're not good at anything at all. They're an idiot. They've mismanaged the whole thing. Oh my god, impeach the bastard...and blah blah blah. And they call Ron Paul the quack... On the one hand, I'm glad war is making everyone upset. It should. But they shouldn't be upset because it wasn't executed perfectly. They should be upset because it was wrong. They should be upset because we're out of line policing the world. They should be upset that we gave up our sovereignty to the UN. Not, for these silly notions of unachievable perfection.

/rant How exactly does partisan hatred trump logic so blatantly? Why in the world is anyone in here not placing Ahmadinejad in AT LEAST the same camp as GWB? I'm not talking about vocalizing to Iran, I mean right here. Hell, if Bush even so much as cryptically hinted at advocating religious oppression he'd be strung up and declared Hitler's prodigy. But Ahmadinejad...he's just talking smack...he don't mean it...blah blah blah Give me a break. This is ridiculous. He's a wannabe mass murderer. He's vocalized it over and over again. He uses religion to control his people. He actually is the overblown rhetoric that people claim Bush is. Seriously. We have folks so blinded with partisan hatred they actually say we're a fascist state. What, a couple of laws, literally, out of thousands, and our government changes it's entire political philosophy? That's lazy propaganda. Not even half-assed. Then you have Ahmadinejad here who is Bush to the 10th power. Completely candid about his openly murderous views and has proven to poison the minds of his people - daily. But yeah, Bush is the anti-christ dictator over the fascist american imperialists. Of course, once we have a democrat president and repeal like..uh..two laws...then all of the sudden we'll be back to all-knowing, all-loving, all-caring-for-children-and-poor-people gentle leader over the generous, free american hope for the world... Come on. I'm completely a non-interventionist and Bush has violated the key principles of our country and I couldn't be any more pissed at him and resentful about it - but even I can see Ahmadinejad over shadows any power hungry, fascist, oppressive, warmongering, ethnic cleansing capacity Bush could ever possess. /end rant

I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. I just can't stand how they've decided that the freaking war is a republican staple and nobody is welcome who doesn't agree to it. Or, even scarier, is that the mainstream?

That wasn't a comparison of the man but a comparison of the situation. The people of Iran might be really cool, but that's irrelevent when they're being led by a murderer. So far, it's verbal. Once he achieves the resources, I doubt it will stay that way. When Ahmadinejad is calling for the destruction of a race of people, that's not theatrical? He gets what he's given. I understand your point about the Iranian people. It's relevance depends on the goal. Diplomacy is tricky stuff. It involves careful maneuvering and rhetoric, whether you like it or not. For interventionists, at this point, to allow his threats to go unchallenged is possibly more dangerious than stepping it up on our side. While that's true, that's also disingenuous. If the neighbors tell their kids that I'm a mean old man and one day I have to get on to them for throwing trash in my yard, then all I'm doing is validating the story huh? This is the same thing. They poison their people with anti-american propaganda and you're telling me that when we spout off it empowers him. Perhaps so, but it's somewhat unavoidable and stacks the deck against us. Suddenly we're not allowed to call a spade, a spade - if we validate his poison. Perception is reality, so ultimately you're right. Again though, I think it's a careful balance.

Geez how pathetic. I would jump off a building if I had to sell that much of myself to make a living. I sooooo don't miss that kind of work. I took a sales job once in my life. Once. I've never felt clean since. And I sucked at it too. Thankfully. Bill Hicks should have been president...

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

My man Bill Hicks. Damn I miss that guy! But yes, it is quite annoying. I also blame Arsenio Hall, as that's where I first heard it. It started out as an introduction - woo! woo! woo!, over and over again. Then as the audience got more comfortable feeding back, getting the interaction, it seemed to grow. I'm thinking it's about excitement and getting the viewer at home to feel like they're watching something awesome. It also feels more "live", or at least it does to me. Married With Children was the first comedy that I noticed it on. It seemed to help direct the intent of the dialoge. Not that I like it. I've always hated "laugh tracks" or any audience tracking at all really. It's too contrived. And it's always comedies. Dramas don't have "crying tracks". When our hero dies at the end, I don't hear a studio audience chiming in with sobs and sniffles. Because it's completely stupid and out of place. Why that doesn't seem to matter with sit-coms, I'll never know.

Me too. I've been running into more and more of that here lately. Lazy intellectualism is nothing new, but these folks take ignorance to a whole new level. I keep hearing folks advocating the use of the H bomb to solve all of these problems. Hard to imagine that people can so flippantly dismiss millions of people like that. And it seems to be a result of intellectual frustration. Well shit man, these problems have been going on for centuries, did they really think it would be easy?

Cool. Glad we could clear that up. And don't worry, I did infer that you meant basically all religions when using the term "religion".