Iran Isreal and US

Ah, I see. And would you mind telling us about the conspiracy funded by the billions of dollars of US foreign aid dished out by the government? Islamic fundamentalists fight because they can't stand Western civilization because it goes against everything they believe in. Fine, so maybe the actions of the US prompted some of them to become terrorists. Not our problem.

You're such a hypobrit. That's my own little pormanteau of hypocrite and Brit. Who created the ethnic mess that is Iraq in the first place? Blame yourself. The majority of the people who lived in Israel had no say in the matter? I'm pretty sure there were quite a few Jews there. Of course, one wouldn't expect someone like you to support the rightful retaking of a nation that was stolen from your people would they? You don't strike me as an SNP fanatic (you are Scottish, right?)

As for the US "creating the Taliban and AQ", I think we'd all prefer a terrorist group that's now on the run to a major communist coutry with nukes. All a matter of perspective. The ME is a mess because of the people that live there, not us. We have to interfere in some areas so nothing irreversable happens. And do you really prefer the Ayatollah over the shah?

its not really what i think that counts,im not Iranian,it was the Iranian people that got rid of the Shah.

But Russia isn't officially communist and the point of the aid to the mujahedin (sp, whatever) was to weaken the USSR and stop it's expansion, which it did. So we had to aim for the greater good on that one.



The Germans were overwhelmingly pro-Hitler, too.

Oh how times have changed,i bet you wish you had backed the soviets insteading of helping create Al queda and Bin laden.

I don't think anyone wishes that. Al Qaeda we can (and have) neutralize. The Soviets were our biggest rivals in terms of just about everything, and we didn't have an advantage to speak of like we do over al Qaeda.

Well, I'm pretty sure that the shahs of Iran were there to begin with, being pro-American didn't make the guy a handpicked pawn, he was part of an established dynasty. I don't think that conspiracy is working out too well, myself, it would be nice if you could provide a detailed list of such people.

Anyway, why shouldn't a country look out for it's own interests? Should we just stand by and not prevent our destruction?

Yeh if you dont like someone in power just invade or back a coup against them,just like the US and the UK did in 1953,they overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran,another one of the countless coups the Us and the Uk to a lesser extent has caried out through the decades,"the US the great bastion of democracy" dont make me laugh.

Yeh if you dont like someone in power just invade or back a coup against them,just like the US and the UK did in 1953,they overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran,another one of the countless coups the Us [SIZE="2"]and the Uk to a lesser extent[/SIZE] has caried out through the decades,"the US the great bastion of democracy" dont make me laugh.

Highlighted: The biggest joke on the internet.
The British Empire, the greatest emperialist in man's history trying to hide behind one of their potential victims skirt. Dawning the skin of a sheep works among sheep, not humans. I can't imagine schools in Britain actually exposing to it's students it's wolfish nature though.

I simply repeat that a nation should look out for its own interests.

Note that several of my points were not responded to very well.

Thankfully the British Empire is no more :thumbup: and we are not a sreous world power like the US,who persist in meddling in other country's affairs.

"A NATION SHOULD LOOK OUT FOR ITS OWN INTERESTS" by invading and backing coups against governments they dont like,even if democtatically elected,you have got a guy on here who calls himself Pinochet,he takes great pride in his name,even though the man was a fascist dictator,who overhtrew and killed a democratically elected president,backed by the USA.


You think several of your points were not answered very well,well i think the same reading your post's on here.

The war in Iraq occurred because Hussein disregarded and scoffed at sanctions applied by the U.N.. Unfortunately, the U.N. did not take it's orders as seriously as some of the allied nations. The war has dragged out thanks to foreign interference of AQ. It has turned out to be a great blessing. Soldiers of AQ have journeyed to Iraq for the privilege and honor of killing American soldiers and achieving their great goal of 72 virgins. That great war has distracted terrorist from targeting innocent western civilians. U.S. and British soldiers have decimated the strength of AQ.
Iraqis, actually celebrated the new year in happiness last night. Things are looking up.
The U.S., in attempts at future vision, have meddled. The U.S. has "never" meddled, (went to war with or any other act) that resulted in America applying a tax to any defeated nation. Quite the contrary, any nation defeated by the U.S. has been rebuilt at the expense of American tax payers and have become great allies.
Not to break my arm patting us on the back though, meddling has cost us credibility and lost some friends. But, to me, we have been a much greater asset than an *** to most peoples who we have interacted with. Most nations turn a blind eye to the woes of other nations and break their arms patting themselves on the back for the lack of intestinal fortitude calling it "being neutral". I call them selfish and cowardly.

My previous point alluded to the fact that American 'meddling' itself was not the problem - the problem has been who it has chosen to support. In many cases you have backed scoundrels, despots & mass-murderers purely & simply out of economic and/or political self interest.

South & Central America is a prime example of continually backing right wing dictators who would cosy up economically to you. The brave & sensible option would have been to support the poor & oppressed peoples of these countries - America would then have been seen as a friendly father figure rather than 'an evil empire' :lightbulb:

South & Central America is a prime example of continually backing right wing dictators who would cosy up economically to you. The brave & sensible option would have been to support the poor & oppressed peoples of these countries - America would then have been seen as a friendly father figure rather than 'an evil empire'

scooby, the poor and oppressed people of these countries are a favorite target for socialist manipulation. Communism and socialism sound great to them, but it invariably puts them in a worse place than they were before, as well as making their nation a threat to democracy. Pinochet caused problems for a few years, but it was probably a necessary evil to put him in power. Communism would be much worse. It's either a dictator who may cause another Cuban missile crisis or one who likes you. Easy choice.

Unfortunately g-man & reagaknight take the same view as their government that backing despots, scoundrels & murderers against the people is somehow for the greater good & to protect democracy.

The poor people of the world don't give a **** who provides food & decent housing for them - whether it's a socialist, communist or ardent capitalists like yourselves. If Americas politicians had the foresight to recognise this then there wouldn't be a 'threat' from socialism.

Also how can you protect democracy by removing or destabilising a democratically elected government??????????????????