On Going to War

Ken Anderson

Ken Anderson

Greeter
Staff member
While I understand the necessity of a military defense, I do not like the idea of going to war with a foreign country in the name of promoting democracy, or to free that country's people from a dictatorship.

Not everyone wants to live in a democracy. I don't want to live in a democracy; the United States is supposed to be a republic, so I wish we'd quit referring to our system of government as a democracy.

But whether it's a democracy or a republic that you might think you're promoting, speaking as an American, it's not our place to impose our system of government on another nation. If the inhabitants of a country don't like their system of government, it's up to them to rise up against it if they can't do so at a ballot box. If the people who live there aren't willing to form a government they want, then they clearly value their lives and their security more than they oppose their government.

The idea that we're freeing the people of Iran by dropping bombs and firing missiles is preposterous, as far as I am concerned. The people of Iran, rather than fighting for their freedom, are lining up along bridges and power plants, forming a human shield against U.S. and Israeli bombs and missiles.

When the colonists rose up against the British government many years ago, they were willing to place themselves at risk in order to change their system of government, and many of them died. The French helped some, but largely in the way of moral support. If the Iranian people truly wanted to live under an American system of government, they'd be working towards that goal rather than placing themselves at risk forming a human shield against the Americans and Israelis.

If the Iranian people had risen up against tyranny in their own nation, forming a new government, our picking a side could be more easily defended, but it's not for us to decide what's best for the Iranian people, so arguments suggesting we're doing this for for the Iranian people is a form of gaslighting.

If the other part of this is true, that we're doing this to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, that could be argued as a self-defense measure, but I'd like to see some evidence. We went into Iraq because they are stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (whatever that means), yet we found none and accomplished nothing useful. Did we even have an excuse for Afghanistan? That said, while I oppose our military incursions in Iran, while we are at war, I will not, like elected Democrats, root for the Iranians to win.
 
Last edited:
BTW, I am not so much concerned about Trump's bluster. He is not going to nuke Iran, whatever he might suggest. He uses bluster to his advantage, and it has worked often.
 
I think the conflict in Iran is mostly about keeping the U.S. homeland safe. Ironically, it is occurring as the Department of Homeland Security is partially shut down. Iran has been trying to target the U.S. since the Ayatollah was allowed to return from Paris. We are the announced "Great Satan" in the eyes of Iranian leadership and they have repeatedly pronounced that to be the case in speeches since 1979. Israel is considered to be the "Little Satan" and a puppet of the U.S., in opposition to what many Americans think of Israel's relationship. Iran has been the base of everything bad that has taken place in the Middle East, especially since the fall of the USSR but expending back before then as an ally of said union.

The Iranian people were subject to a similar propaganda campaign that led to the fall of the Shah whose secret police organization was not a nice group either, and the take over of the country by the Islamists led by the Ayatollah. You can see the actions of propaganda in the TDS movement (and is some of the MAGA folks too),a nd such propaganda is spreading through many areas, especially in "Blue" areas. Opinions are often not based on critical thinking, as that has been taken out of the education system here at all levels, and teachers in public schools are proud when their classes are emptied to demonstrate in nonsensical "No Kings Protests". The same techniques used in Soviet Russia under Lenin, Hitler's Germany, and Mao's China are now used in the U.S. to get people like Mamdani elected to public government posts.

Thanks to the open borders of the last administration, China, Russia, Iran and others have active cells in the U.S. living off the welfare system here just as the cells of the IRA did in Britain during long periods of conflict there.
 
One point to consider about Iran and why aren't its people rising up against the government. They have tried that in the past and tens of thousands were publicly executed. I think a majority of Iranian citizens would like to live with more freedom, as they once did, but the fear of public execution makes them appear not to care and if the government orders them to line up along bridges, forming a human shield, they find this better than a steel cable around their neck, swinging from a crane.

If Iran and other countries that sponsor terrorism, kept it within their own country, then that would be a different situation. It is the religious beliefs that rule the country that teach the non Muslim must be destroyed.

When a religion thinks they are ordered and blessed by God to go convert the world or kill those unwilling to convert, then the problem becomes a worldwide concern. Just like the Americas were the target of the Crusades that led to multi million mass murder, in the name of God, such is the goal of the Muslim leaders.

Look at the infiltration of anti democratic religion, Muslim, that threatens our republic. Our country has a real problem and it isn't going to get better by turning a blind eye to the source of terrorism. I hate war, however I don't see what is happening in Iran as a war, but rather an action to remove a rule of hate and death to any that don't conform. I think the action in Iran was the greatest thing to happen for women's rights in the world.

Hopefully, other male ruled countries where women are property and lead lives of servitude and obedience, will rethink their treatment of women. Sometimes it takes war which to some appears offensive, but in fact is defensive for those that have no voice such as women in Iran.

I have no doubt if we could get guns to the women of Iran, that they would take control. Men with guns, women without guns. It isn't hard to see who will control.
 
Estimates are that up to 70,000 American colonists were killed fighting for their freedom from Britain. It the Iranian people are unwilling to put themselves at risk, then they have made a choice.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
Thomas Paine
 
Last edited:
I've been unplugged from my regular sources for 10 days with a dead laptop. I thought Trump had told the Iranians to lay low so as to minimize collateral damage. The chatter was that we were going to get them guns to fight with. I gotta think that if 10s of thousands were willing to stand up in protest and get slaughtered, these are not a passive people.
 
Although I'd still question whether it's any of our business, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the U.S. supporting Iranians who were actually making a bid for freedom, but we shouldn't impose it on them if they don't want it, or don't care enough to endanger themselves.
 
Ken Anderson said:
Although I'd still question whether it's any of our business, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the U.S. supporting Iranians who were actually making a bid for freedom, but we shouldn't impose it on them if they don't want it, or don't care enough to endanger themselves.
Click to expand...
Sure, I agree that it's not our place to "spread democracy" (or to engage in social colonialism), but it takes us back to what our real reason for being there is. "Freeing a repressed people" is the cover story, rather than overtly declaring war on China and Russia...even though they (and Middle Eastern nations) know what we're doing. It's also what Venezuela, Cuba and Greenland are all about.
 
Cover stories are lies, and while I can appreciate the benefits of a good cover story, the ones that become obvious should be pointed out or we'll all turn into dolts.
 
Ken Anderson said:
Cover stories are lies, and while I can appreciate the benefits of a good cover story, the ones that become obvious should be pointed out or we'll all turn into dolts.
Click to expand...
Yeh, except we're not the target audience. In instances of foreign engagement, I don't mind it so much. It's the lies that destroy domestic social structures that should be violently opposed. In that regard, I hate to think how long the line of Useful Dolts is.
 
John Brunner said:
I've been unplugged from my regular sources for 10 days with a dead laptop. I thought Trump had told the Iranians to lay low so as to minimize collateral damage. The chatter was that we were going to get them guns to fight with. I gotta think that if 10s of thousands were willing to stand up in protest and get slaughtered, these are not a passive people.
Click to expand...
What I heard was that we sent weapons into Iran via the Kurds for the Iranian people. Unfortunately the Kurds kept the weapons and the Iranians, for whom they were intended got none. I guess there is a reason that everyone in the entire area hate the Kurds.
 
Don Alaska said:
What I heard was that we sent weapons into Iran via the Kurds for the Iranian people. Unfortunately the Kurds kept the weapons and the Iranians, for whom they were intended got none. I guess there is a reason that everyone in the entire area hate the Kurds.
Click to expand...
There seems to be a number of missteps, if we believe what we hear. I'm not saying one way or the other since I don't know, but either is equally possible.
 
I'm thinking that the Romney faction of the Republican Party is probably a little happier with Trump now that he's gotten on board with their pro-war policies. I suppose it's good for the economy since weaponry is pretty much the only thing we produce these days.
 
Ken Anderson said:
I'm thinking that the Romney faction of the Republican Party is probably a little happier with Trump now that he's gotten on board with their pro-war policies. I suppose it's good for the economy since weaponry is pretty much the only thing we produce these days.
Click to expand...
Yeh, he's been getting a lot of criticism from his base for violating a "No new wars" campaign promise.
 
I wish I could believe what we're told about Iran, but in 2011, we were attacked by Saudis, and, in response, we called Saudi Arabia an ally and went to war against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. In subsequent years, we've made Islam the quasi-national religion of the United States, the only one that is promoted in our public schools, and one of the few that cannot be criticized.
 
Nah, Trump's opposition are Islamist shills.


They don't even care about that, in reality it is about clicks and ad revenue. Sadly, many useful idiots get sucked in by them.
 
Jacob Petersheim said:
Nah, Trump's opposition are Islamist shills.


They don't even care about that, in reality it is about clicks and ad revenue. Sadly, many useful idiots get sucked in by them.
Click to expand...
You mean it's not NASA's job to make Muslims feel good about themselves?

Regarding Tucker...he's shown himself to be a real whore. But those folks who are right-of-center have so few stars, we tend to hump the leg of every new personality on the scene. Regrets often follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top