Recent atrocities in Iran has gotten people asking if the US should intervene, after the reports of two of the twentysomething kidnapped South Koreans have been murdered by the cowards.

This isn't the first time this century that the US has been asked to go in defense of human suffering worldwide.

With all of the rhetoric surrounding our involvement in other world theaters, as well as UN involvement worldwide, why would we want to extend ourselves any more than any other countries peoples want their own governments to step in?

Big10

Aren't you talking about the recent atrocities in Afghanistan? Why did you write Iran? You seemed sort of vague about why you put Iran in there. Please explain further and I'll try to comment better on your post.
Exactly what are you talking about? Be very "specific" about the "recent" atrocities you just talked about above, and provide up-to-date news links. Thanks.

CaptainRich

Sorry. I meant Afg. My haste, my bad. I realised my error but the post was up. Did you not clue into the S Koreans murdered?

Big10

Yes I did CaptainRich, and that is one hell of a mistake. This mistake sort of scares me...so I'm going to get a little side-tracked here and not comment on the actual situation at hand.
I guess it's easy to make that mistake because Iran has been paralleled to Afghanistan in the sense that they are both labeled Terrorist As*holes. I have seen these mistakes time and time again on the news, when Bush said "Saddam, no I mean Binladin". Anyway, that was not Bush-bashing for you (I'm a Republican).
It's just interesting that two countries like Iran and Afghanistan, who are so damn different, have been easily mixed up. Captain, please don't take offense to what I just wrote (it is an honest mistake on your part, I realize this, but it is a "particular" mistake that is being produced over and over again...as if we are learning or being taught to make these types of errors).

BABRAM

So you meant Afghan, but I'll still post my thoughts on Iran.


Waiting for the UN's usual rhetoric measures will resolve nothing. They'll make note of the situation and say they are investigating. Well Ok they'll probably go the minor sanction route. On the other hand, the U.S. is keeping tally and I fully expect Iran and Syria (and a few others) are on the radar to pay a thousand fold in the next decade or so. No! I don't think we will get directly involved in Iran yet and we're already involved in Afghanistan. I guess we will have to see what direction the US is headed after the 2008 elections and to understand exactly the world's current affairs and what might be necessary. But as for as I'm concerned, no calendar is needed for dying and both Mahmoud Ahmadnejah and Bashar al-Assad are begging to see Jim Morrison.





Bobby

CaptainRich

These two countries have displayed some distinct similarities, here of late. Radicals in that "global region" have rallied around the bridge collapsing in Minnasota.

I've clarified my error. Had I left out the particular country where this happened, would you be more willing to discuss the issue?

Skell

In case you don't remember the US has already invaded Afghanistan.

The Coalitions resources are stretched enough trying to clean the mess up in Iraq. Iran would be on the radar but i think it would take something pretty drastic to happen for an invasion in the near future.

Who knows though with this president..

CaptainRich

We didn't "invaded" Afghanistan. We persued al qaida and taliban forces that lead us into Afghanistan. Our goal wasn't to take the country or regime change. When we finished what we started, we mostly left them to pick up where we left off. The problem is that they didn't pick up, and that's why they're doing thing there again.

The terrorist/murderers are largely a non-uniformed multinational army (why do most of them hide there faces?) and allow themselves no border. They go were ever they want and anyone who confronts them is killed. Kinda like wild wild west, a hundred fold

We're told the are cells in the US. Why are they allowed to sustain ops here?!?! If you know acancer is building and that it will kill you, why not cut it out?!

tomder55

Capt. our intentions certainly was to force regime change in Afghanistan after the taliban refused to cooperate with us in taking down AQ. We supported the Northern Alliance during the war and we were more than helpful in helping Karzai consolidate his position as leader of the country. No we did not take over the country but let's say the Talkban had been democratically elected after the war .....do you realy think we would've accepted the outcome ?

The rest of your statements in this posting I agree with . I am all for humanitarian interventions but there must be other compelling American national interest in the decision to intervene.

As for Iran I think both criteria are met . Iran has waged an almost one sided war against the US since 1979 . I say almost because we did respond militarily late in the 1980s and waged a pretty significant under-reported naval war against them in the Persian Gulf.

We know they actively support our enemies in Iraq and we now know they have taken direct military actions that have resulted in American casualties. As far as I'm concerned a state of war already exists between us and them . There are significant human rights outrages happening there now as the hanging parties they are conducting on political prisoners show. The people of Iran I know would more than welcome our intervention . To me it's a no brainer . To suceed in the ME Iran will eventually have to be dealt with .

ETWolverine

Keep in mind that there are more similarities between Iranian leadership and Afghanistan/Taliban than many people realize. Anyone here remember the fact that Iran recently took a bunch of British sailors hostage, and tried to do the same to some Aussie sailors? I don't see much of a difference between using kidnapped Brit sailors as political leverage and using South Korean nationals as political leverage. Do you?