ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags US-Iran relations

View Poll Results: ?
Very skeptical 30 85.71%
Somewhat skeptical 3 8.57%
Not skeptical 2 5.71%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 3rd July 2019, 05:33 AM   #81
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,155
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Obama had the authority to send forces there without congressional approval. So why didn't he? Did they change their minds? Are black men not allowed to be in on the conspiracies?


That's ... actually kind of plausible.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 03:46 PM   #82
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,879
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I suggest you go and look at what was really happening at the time. Hussien never asked for permission, but yes the US was being "weak" in its stance on the Iraqi build up. The US ambassador did not say that they "didn't care," but rather that they "had no opinion on Arab-Arab conflict." However, at the same time he also said that Iraq needed to find a peaceful way to resolve the border conflict.

Meanwhile the White-house was relaying mixed messages including that they had no strategic interest in Kuwait, and that they would support their friends in the Middle East. The problem wasn't that they were giving a go ahead, it was that they literally had zero policy on what to do if Iraq invaded and they were being assured by both Egypt and Saudi Arabia that Saddam would not invade, that things could be sorted out peacefully if the US stayed out of it and didn't escalate the situation with hard line rhetoric.

Right up to invasion itself, it was believed that there would be no need for action, even if Iraq did invade a small area of the border with Kuwait and carved that part off.

Things changed when Iraq invaded and took the entire country, and further again when the Kuwait Ambassador lied about the incubator babies and Saudi Arabia started to fear Saddam would push on deeper into the Arabian Peninsular and was planning to invade them.

To take a quote from the article linked above...

''To suggest that we are to blame for all of this and we lulled them into thinking they could have Kuwait is really terrible,'' a senior official said. ''But we should have had a stiffer tone. It is unlikely to have made a difference, but it might have made a difference.''



So first off, this isn't an "admitted" false flag. It is an allegation made in a book by one man, and it has a very major and glaring hole in it.

Despite a number of sources saying "radio transmissions" the US, and West Germany, did not intercept radio transmissions from a transmitter.

They intercepted a Telex message, send over the Telex Telecommunications Network. This can be found when studying a little bit deeper.

So even if the claim of the radio transmitter was true, for which we only have the word of one person selling a controversial book, it wasn't the way the US got the Libyan message, they got it through an interception on communications at the Embassy end, not the Tripoli end, and when the Staci files were opened in 1990, there was enough information about the bombings to prove conclusively who was responsible for the bombing, where they made the bomb, who took it into the club, because one of the group was a Stasi double agent and they had them all under surveillance, and that information resulted in three convictions.

Isn't it just remarkable what you can find out when you do some research?

Isn't it also remarkable how much right and alt-right sycophants are willing rewrite history, ignore inconvenient facts and make up their own alternative facts in order to fit their narrative?
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2019, 09:30 PM   #83
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,396
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Isn't it just remarkable what you can find out when you do some research?

Isn't it also remarkable how much right and alt-right sycophants are willing rewrite history, ignore inconvenient facts and make up their own alternative facts in order to fit their narrative?
Everyone does it to some extent,it is far easier to believe information that matches your own biased world view than information that would counter it. Accepting information that goes against your view of the world might require your actually considering that you world view might be wrong, and you might have to reconsider your beliefs.

Far easier to declare any contrary evidence as fake and go back to the comfort of your beliefs where you don't have to question what you are being told.

As Skeptics I would hope that for the most part we can question our core beliefs, but I keep being greatly disappointed I have found.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 10:34 AM   #84
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Please, do count them. What wars have the US started in the past 100 years?
I was just speaking of the wars in this century; since the year 2000. Here goes: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria; along with drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.


Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
FTFY .

Firstly, I was commenting on the writing style. It didn't sound like a description of an actual event, but something out of some sub-par action novel?
It was a description of an actual event.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Secondly, the fact that these countries are or have been at war, several of them without the US having lifted a finger to start those conflicts, doesn't mean this alleged Tom Clancy-wannabe meeting scene actually happened.
The US can overthrow a regime by launching a massive military invasion, as in the case of Iraq, or it can give support and armaments to rebels and insurgents within those countries or do both. For the war in Afghanistan we had boots on the ground and airstrikes, but we let the Northern Alliance do much of the fighting against the Taliban. After the Iraq war it was no longer politically feasible to have a large military presence on the ground so we switched to more paramilitary and clandestine operations(Syria). The policy remains the same(regime change and sowing discord) even though the tactics may differ.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Also, if the US had plans to topple the regime in Syria or in any way , isn't it very odd that they've been doing nothing since the hostilities there began. Obama had the authority to send forces there without congressional approval. So why didn't he? Did they change their minds? Are black men not allowed to be in on the conspiracies?
Obama did state that removal of Assad was a goal and sponsored clandestine operations to support this cause.

"With respect to Syria, the United States continues to work with allies and friends and the Syrian opposition to hasten an end of Assad's rule...Since the start of the situation in Syria, we have stepped up, as not just a superpower, as you phrased it, but also because of basic humanity, to say that Assad needed to go."

Quote:
isn't it very odd that they've been doing nothing since the hostilities there began?
What are you talking about? What fake news alternate reality have you been living in?

We've been funding Syrian opposition forces since 2006. William Roebuck, from the US embassy in Damascus, was talking about ways to internally weaken the Assad regime since the same time period. The CIA has trained insurgents and inserted them into the conflict. We've conducted paramilitary raids in the country. The CIA has facilitated the transfer of arms from Libya to Syrian rebels. We have established military bases in the country with some 2,000 soldiers on the ground.

And we had nothing to do with the overthrow of Gaddaffi in Libya, right?
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 04:18 PM   #85
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,445
That's a lot of goal post moving right there.
__________________
In choosing to support humanitarian organizations, it's best to choose those that do not have "militant wings" (Mycroft, 2013)
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 05:21 AM   #86
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,396
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
I was just speaking of the wars in this century; since the year 2000.
I was aware of that, I was giving you an even longer time period to try and make your case in.

Quote:
Here goes: Afghanistan
US did not start this war. While they entered it in 2001 the war started in 1992 with the Taliban attacking the Afghani Government and pushing them out if power in 1996, then the ex government forces fighting to try and retain control of their areas until the US joined in 2001.

Quote:
Iraq
As noted above, this one we'll give you.

Quote:
Somalia
Again a civil war that the US has some involvement in (mostly drone strikes) but did not start. The Somali Civil war has been ongoing since the 1991 overthrow of the then Barre government, with the transition from no government to a Transitional one in 2006 and then the Coalition in 2009. Current US involvement started in 2007, after the start of the second phase of the war.

Quote:
Libya
The US did not start this one either. The Civil War came about because of protesters organised by the Arab Spring were fired on by Qaddafi's forces. US involvement happened after France determined that they were going to launch airstrikes and called on NATO assistance.

Quote:
Syria
Again another war that was well underway long before the US got involved. Another civil war started by Government forces firing on Arab Spring Protesters.

Quote:
along with drone strikes in Pakistan
The US is not at war with Pakistan

Quote:
and Yemen.
Yet another Civil War that the US didn't start.

1 out of 7, not a good score for you. Want to try again?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 05:28 AM   #87
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,445
You forgot to point out we didn't start Libya either, otherwise a great summary .
__________________
In choosing to support humanitarian organizations, it's best to choose those that do not have "militant wings" (Mycroft, 2013)
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 05:38 AM   #88
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,396
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
You forgot to point out we didn't start Libya either, otherwise a great summary .
Check the very first line under Libya....
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 05:42 AM   #89
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,445
Whoops .
__________________
In choosing to support humanitarian organizations, it's best to choose those that do not have "militant wings" (Mycroft, 2013)
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 06:04 PM   #90
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,077
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
1 out of 7, not a good score for you.
Yeah, but that 1 was a doozy.

Quote:
The Civil War came about because of protesters organised by the Arab Spring
Arab Spring
Quote:
The Arab Spring is widely believed to have been instigated by dissatisfaction, particularly of youth and unions, with the rule of local governments, though some have speculated that wide gaps in income levels and pressures caused by the Great Recession may have had a hand as well. Some activists had taken part in programs sponsored by the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, but the U.S. government claimed that they did not initiate the uprisings.
Quote:
The US did not start this one either.
Libya–United States relations
Quote:
Relations are today cordial and cooperative...

However, for decades prior to the 2011 Libyan Civil War, the countries were not on good terms and engaged each other in several military skirmishes. The Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi funded terror operations against the United States, most notably the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, to which the United States retaliated by bombing Libya
Quote:
Again another war that was well underway long before the US got involved. Another civil war started by Government forces firing on Arab Spring Protesters.
American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War
Quote:
During the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, the U.S. initially supplied the rebels of the Free Syrian Army with non-lethal aid (including food rations and pickup trucks), but quickly began providing training, money, and intelligence to selected Syrian rebel commanders.
Quote:
The US is not at war with Pakistan
Pakistan–United States relations
Quote:
The United States and Pakistan have experienced several military confrontations on the Durand Line. These skirmishes took place between American forces deployed in Afghanistan, and Pakistani troops guarding the border. On November 26, 2011, 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in an aerial attack on Pakistani positions near the border. The attack further damaged US-Pakistani relations with many in Pakistan calling for a more hardline stance against the United States.
Quote:
Yet another Civil War that the US didn't start.
Yemeni Civil War
Quote:
The Yemeni government, meanwhile, has enjoyed significant international backing from the United States and Persian Gulf monarchies. U.S. drone strikes were conducted regularly in Yemen during Hadi's presidency in Sanaʽa, usually targeting Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.The United States was also a major supplier of weapons to the Yemeni government,
We may not have 'started' these wars, but we always seem to be involved in them one way or another. And who's to say where any conflict 'starts' anyway? We've been meddling in the Middle East for so long now there probably isn't any development we aren't partially responsible for. We screwed up Iran in 1953, and every attempt to contain the blowback since has only made things worse. The Iran–Iraq War, Gulf War, 9/11, subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Arab Spring, and everything after it has been a result of our meddling.

But hey, it was worth it. We kept the pumps flowing with cheap oil to boost our economy and create obscene wealth for a few. It's killing millions and destroying the planet, while we sit back and smugly declare that we didn't 'start' it - when in fact we did.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2019, 04:50 PM   #91
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,396
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Yeah, but that 1 was a doozy.
Well, the war itself was short. The ongoing conflict and resultant issues not so much. But we're not counting by results here. Cause if we were, then Austria would have to be put at the top of the list because of all the issues stemming from WW1!

Quote:
We may not have 'started' these wars, but we always seem to be involved in them one way or another.
Comes at the price of being a Superpower involved in International Treaties who spent most of the last Century facing off against a different Superpower who was intent of spreading their own ideology across the world, and now is looked to and relied on by pretty much everyone else to help them when there is trouble. Not saying that is a good thing, but when you look at the list, ignoring Iraq because the US differently started that one, in pretty much all the other cases the US has been involved because they have been asked to help (Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen).

Quote:
And who's to say where any conflict 'starts' anyway?
Historians seem to be able to figure it out pretty well.

Quote:
We've been meddling in the Middle East for so long now there probably isn't any development we aren't partially responsible for.
Seriously? You realise that the Middle East has been filled with bad actors for decades, if not centuries, and they didn't need the US's help to act out on those issues? The big reason there is trouble in the Middle East today is because of the whole Shai vs Sunni issue, and that predates the USA's existence by hundreds of years.

Quote:
We screwed up Iran in 1953, and every attempt to contain the blowback since has only made things worse.
This is a far too simplistic view of the truth. Causing the coup to remove the Socialist Government in 1953 did create issues in Iran, I won't argue that, but dumping them on the US's doorstep is denying the agency of those in Iran that worked towards their own destruction. The US didn't make the Shah act as he did towards those of a more strongly religious bent in an effort to secularise Iran. Nor did they cause the 1970's oil price spike, or cause the Iranian economy to inflate rapidly and then collapse leaving them in a devastating recession.

The US were also not responsible for the uprisings across Iran, all leading to the 1979 revolution.

Quote:
The Iran–Iraq War
You are putting something on the US's shoulders here for which they bear no responsibility. Iran and Iraq's war was over religion vs Secularism, and in the end, who got to control a particular bit of dirt. The hyper-religious, Shai based, Iranian Government started to turn against the secular, mostly Sunni lead Iraqi Government for its unwillingness to adopt a theological base for its governance, and because of what it saw as oppression of the southern Shai majority in Iraq. Saddam felt that Iran had been weakened by the uprisings and then the Revolution, as well as the sanctions imposed on it, and still smarting over the 1975 Algiers Agreement where he believed that he had lost territory that should have been Iraqi, and saw the weakness of Iran as the perfect time to regain it.

The area had already been involved in fighting for several years with the Kurdish uprising, and the border dispute before the uprising in Iran and the start of the first Gulf war between Iran and Iraq. The US didn't cause this.

Now yes, the US did get involved, it supplied weapons to both sides and intel to the Iraqis, but to be fair, so did pretty much everyone else, including Israel, the Soviets, the British, the French, Italy, Yugoslavia, Portugal, Spain, and to a degree Turkey who traded civilian goods and oil despite an embargo in the warring nations.

Quote:
Gulf War
Pretty much covered above, but again, not the US's fault, nor something that came from the 1953 Coup. To understand this one you have to go back to 1920 and the Treaty of Sèvres.

When the central powers were defeated in WW1, the Ottoman Empire was broken up. This created what would become the States of Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and also set up the British Mandate for Palestine. As part of this the Principality of Kuwait was separated off from the Mandate for Iraq as it claimed that it had always been a sovereign state, even as part of the Empire. However the Borders where never really established, which wasn't a major problem until oil was discovered under that dotted line. In 1953 the Rumaila oil field was discovered under the line, and in 1960, under the Arab League, a more permanent border was determined, but one that ran to the north of the southern most tip of the Rumaila oil field, meaning that part of it (about 2 miles) was now officially in Kuwait.

Fast Forward to 1988. The Iraqi-Kuwait dispute occurred because of two things. First Iraq claimed the Kuwait was over producing its oil, and thus driving down the price and costing Iraq billions of dollars. It didn't help that Kuwait was simultaneously refusing to pardon loans worth $14 Billion for the war with Iran. Second, and the main pretext to the war, they also accused Kuwait of drilling down and across the border to tap into oil reserves in the Rumali field in their side of the border.

Using the claim that Kuwait should have been a part of Iraq, but was separated off by the British, the Iraq government acted, and invaded.

This action had nothing to do with the US, nor the 1953 Iranian Coup.

Once the Invasion happened, both the Kuwaiti and Saudi Governments requested US help, which lead to the 1991 Gulf War.

Quote:
9/11
Wow... There literally have been books written on this subject and one of the few things that didn't cause this was the 1953 Iranian Coup.

Bin Laden wasn't a USA fanboy from well back in the days of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. He was a follower of Sayyid Qutb, and through those teachings had come to believe that the USA hated Islam and was attempting to destroy it. His resentments were further fueled because the US refused to help out the foreign fighters involved in Afghanistan, instead only dealing with, training, and equipping the native Afghans.

In the years to follow he would be also be angered by the US's actions in Lebanon and their support for Israel.

This again was intensified in 1991 when the Saudi Government rejected his request to aid them in removing Iraq from Kuwait, and instead the SA Government turned to the US, resulting in what he saw as the sacrilege of heathen boots treading on the Holy Ground of Arabia.

In 1992 he was informed by the SA Government that the US wanted to kill him, a lie that was intended to get him out of Saudi Arabia after him actions in Yemen had cause heat on the Saudi Government. He fled to Sudan and the SA government disowned him.

In the Sudan he did a lot of infrastructure projects, however he also came to the notice of the US because of Al Qaeda's actions in Algeria and other countries. The US put pressure on the Sudanese Government to expel him, and the Sudanese who owed him millions of dollars were quite happy to do so, expelling him with pretty much the clothing on his back.

This lead to his return to Afghanistan and the turning of his campaign onto the US.

Add to him a man that financed the 1993 World Trade Center bombings and masterminded a number of other attacks and attempted attacks, and you get 9/11.

Quote:
subsequent wars in Iraq
This was going to happen regardless of 9/11. It was already in the development stages pre-9/11. If anything 9/11 got in the way of it because forces had to be split, though admittedly Bush and Co did a good job of fooling a lot of the US public that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11.

Quote:
and Afghanistan
The Afghan Civil war dates back to at least the 1973 Coup of Daoud Khan over the then King, Nadir Shah. This coup, which wasn't anything to do with the US, lead to the 1978 Saur Revolution by the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, which if any country was responsible for was mostly Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's Pakistan.

This lead to the Soviet's Christmas Invasion in 1979 to try and end the counter revolution and stabilise the new and out of control communist government, and the whole Afghan War thing through to the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, a decade later.

This war continued without the Soviets until the fall of the Communist regime in 1992 when President Najibullah agreed to step aside and make way for a mujahideen coalition government. And then they started fighting each other, leading to a new civil war from 1992 to 1996.

At this point a new faction arose, born from the Madrassas of Pashtun, the schools established by Saudi Arabia during the Soviet War, the Taliban started out fighting local warlords in 1994 to gain control and stability over a war torn nation. With support from Pakistan they would eventually become strong enough to defeat the warring mujahideen coalition and seize the capital in 1996. They would then continue the expand, pushing back, or incorporating, the remaining mujahideen forces until they controlled 90% of Afghanistan, with only the Northern Alliance holding out.

It was this background that the US got involved after the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, instead offering a number of solutions that the US deemed satisfactory. This lead to the US siding with the Northern Alliance and attacking the Taliban.

None of this has anything to do with the 1953 Iran Coup.

Quote:
Arab Spring
The US wasn't involved in this one, in fact CIA documents show that they were taken totally unaware by it.

Perhaps they shouldn't have been since protests and movements were ramping up in various countries, including Tunisia, Egypt, and Algeria through 2008. However the spark that literally ignited things was the was the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor who on the 17th of December, 2010, had his stock confiscated by a municipal inspector. An hour later he set himself on fire on the street outside of the governor's office after being refused entrance to demand the return of his scales.

His death 18 days later, and his funeral become the focal point of the rage of the people, and set off protests across Tunisia.

Those protests spread as more people saw change was possible and began to organise themselves, a lot of it through the internet.

If anything this was actually bad for the US's interested as it destabilised much of the Arab world, removed a number of Pro-USA Governments, or at least ones they could work with, and replaced them with more anti-US ones, if not out right hostile to the US ones. It also allowed for the formation and establishment of ISIL.

Quote:
and everything after it has been a result of our meddling.
I am unsure what you mean by "everything after that" but again, you seem to blaming the US for things that are the actions of bad actors in the the region as if they can't possibly get into trouble and start fights without the US, despite them doing so long before the USA was even established, and even before the Crusades happened. The entire Middle East has been a Tinderbox of conflict long before Western interference started, centuries before. Sure it hasn't helped matters, but it certainly isn't the sole reason for it either.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 7th July 2019 at 05:05 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 06:21 AM   #92
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,445
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I am unsure what you mean by "everything after that" but again, you seem to blaming the US for things that are the actions of bad actors in the the region as if they can't possibly get into trouble and start fights without the US, despite them doing so long before the USA was even established, and even before the Crusades happened. The entire Middle East has been a Tinderbox of conflict long before Western interference started, centuries before. Sure it hasn't helped matters, but it certainly isn't the sole reason for it either.
So much this.

Even with Western/American meddling, we choose our actions and futures. In another thread, I made the analogy of a child being bullied and presented three scenarios: one in which the bullied child told a teacher, one in which he tried to beat up the bully, and one in which he beat up the bully's little sister.

We don't choose what outside actors do to us, but we sure as heck choose how we cope.
__________________
In choosing to support humanitarian organizations, it's best to choose those that do not have "militant wings" (Mycroft, 2013)
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.