Reviews for Disproving Republican Ideology on Iraq
No Trust chapter 1 . 2/14/2005
Just to make it public:

CF's off the hook.
Calvin Fitzgerald chapter 1 . 2/13/2005
"You wouldn’t happen to know anything about that, would you Calvin Fitzgerald? No, no, of course you wouldn’t."

Exactly, I wouldn't. You impugn my honor. I may despise your personal philosophies and politics, but I have never ever stooped so low. Besides, this is a bit too obvious, isn't it? Surely I have better things to do then to sign your names to random anonymous reviews.

Calvin Fitzgerald
No Trust says Fuck you chapter 1 . 2/13/2005
Someone is apparently leaving unsigned reviews using my handle and email address to flame sappy war poems:

w w . ?storyid1830626

You wouldn’t happen to know anything about that, would you Calvin Fitzgerald? No, no, of course you wouldn’t.
Giygas666 chapter 1 . 2/11/2005
"British Imperialism set the stage for the Iranian regime in power today. In reality the United States is simply cleaning up the mess left by the European powers."

No, the US is adding to the mess created by the Euopean powers it assisted in the 1950's.

"Let totalitarian regimes with dismal human right records off the hook then eh?"

What goes on in Iran is not the US's responablility to fix up. Sine your'e a Republican let me frame this using terms you'll understand: Let the Iranians pull themselves up by their bootstraps instead of relying on big government (ours) to solve all their problems. Individual responsability, folks.

"For a liberal that is not very compassionate at all."

Republicans used to advocate the same policies I and other libertarians do. By the way, there's nothing compassionate about using the state to murder Americans or Iranians people for some vague "greater good."

"I am fairly sure that the paranoid do not actually realize they are suffering from paranoia. As long as you see the Federal government behind everything you might as well start calling yourself Fox Mulder."

Actually, you're the paranoid one, always whining and bellyaching about terrorists that are supposedly under every rock, tree, and bush (which is just a scare tactic). You're the one who's always complaining that we should just attack any random country simply because you think there is a possibility that someone there might possibly concieve of considering attempting to plan an attack against a US landmark.

You put too much faith in the government's propaganda; have you acquired a stockade of duct tape yet? Hell kid, I live in NYC, one of the prime targets of the 9/11 attacks, and I can tell you that people here generally aren't too scared about terrorists; we tend to be more concerned of the Bush regime than Osama bin Laden or Iran.

"This is coming from a man who spends his time defending regimes that have the same human rights record as Nazi Germany."

I'm not defending any regime at all; libertarians generally don't defend *any* regimes. I'm simply attacking your stupid ideology.

"Iran is a threat to the United States as long as it considers the United States an enemy."

A country such as, say, Brunei, may consider the US to be an enemy, but that doesn't mean it can pose a real threat against our country. Just 'cause iran mdislikes the US doesn't mean it is a threat. Iran isn't mobilizing forces or begging the UN to pass resolutions to attack American soil. I think your friend Steve pointed out elsewhere that Iran doesn't even have nukes. Iran, like Iraq, is not in a position to attack the United Staes. End of story. Stop wasting time with these conspiracy theories.

"I thought I had made myself quite clear when I pointed out to Holocaustpulp that the isolationist policies, and here I meant the United States, would not work today because times have changed. "

Globalization does not preclude imperialism. There's no reason why America can't carry on peaceful commerce and diplomatic relations with other countries without pointing guns at others and people what to do all the time (thus pissing peple off, who then attack the US). The American government is culpable for creating and instigating whetever threats we face from abroad.

"But at the moment, for the United States it is simply not practical to drop everything and return to foriegn policy of the 1920's."

"Impractical" for whom? It would be extremely practical for me, since I wouldn't have to fork over tax monies to fund the slaughter of childfen abroad. It would be practical for you since you wouldn't have to fork over your hard-earned money to subsidize dictarotships in third World countries.

It would NOT be practical for the government, as it needs to employ its defense contractors, or for the bleeding heart chickenhawks. But fuck the politicians; they don't create anything of value anyway. Let them fight their wars on their own time and their own dime-not mine or yours.

By the way, I have a homework assignment for you: go read the Constitution, and find me the section that endorses nation-building and foreign "humanitarian" intervention.

"here would be some other world power interfering in other nations business and conducting wars overseas, possibly even in North America."

The Soviet Union is dead, comrade. We already have "some world power interfering in other nations' business and conducting wars overseas." it's called the United States. And the US wold be more than capable of repelling any threat to its soil if the government would knock it off with the imperialism already.
Calvin Fitzgerald chapter 1 . 2/11/2005
Are you implying that Calvin Fitzgerald is just a joke account that you created?

"Leftist"? "Pussnut"?

I must conclude that you are. How revealing. Do tell.

Calvin Fitzgerald
No Trust chapter 1 . 2/10/2005
I get it now. Calvin Fitzgerald is a joke account created by some fat pimply-faced leftist pussnut to make conservatives look dumb.

Greatest alter. Ever. Better than Mr. Flames, even.
holocaustpulp chapter 3 . 2/10/2005
No Trust: If you don't wish to abide by the international terms of morality and natural human appreciation, then fine - be my guest.

Calvin: "It should be pointed out that if one truly fears a nuclear war then one would also fear the proliferation of weapons which make said war much more likely to happen. Especially the proliferation of those weapons in the hands of nations that consider the western world hostile to their regimes. "

Iran has recently been frank with the world. The IAEA has found no nuclear weapons programs. The CIA is in no position for intelligence operations, and Europe is negotiating. I fear nuclear war, and the solution to preventing it is peace talks (if those fail, investigation efforts and UN sanctions).

"You also trust the heads of state of a theocratic totalitarian regime more then you trust the "Feds". What does that say about you?"

I failed to represent myself correctly. The US government didn't tell the public about potentially disruptive actions being taken in Iran during peace talks - I believe this intelligence were thus disruptive because it undermined diplomacy to a certain extent. I trust Iran as of now because the IAEA, not the Ayatollah, has said they have no WMD program.

"Competition for resources and assets, not to mention religion and ideology, create enemies and breed discourse between states. Intelligence is a tool used to gain the upper hand in the struggle for resources and assets. Just the fact that a state uses intelligence does not guarantee that a state will fail."

Conflict, yes. Intelligence, while gaining the "upper hand" against potential enemies, perpetuates the competitive hatred. I see intelligence as an inevitable state endeavor, as well as the unwinding of the state itself.

"Yes, overstreched. Which is why the United States government is not, currently, attacking Iran. You continue to make my point for me."

Short as in the Pentagon admits it hasn't recruited the wanted number of military members after one thousand four hundred deaths in Iraq. Short by the government's terms, short by mine – over-stretched as well.

"Or, the Republicans pushed it, and the Democrats supported it, as the public backed it, and then pretended they didn't to garner the support of the pacifist wing of their party."

Personally, I wasn't as involved in politics at the time. As for the Democrats, they believed faulty CIA intelligence that existed under Clinton, but that the reds capitalized off of under Bush. No war was needed under Clinton, but it was under Bush. The Dems were duped, giving both a bad name to them, the Republicans, and the American government.

"Which is always fun to do, because, hindsight is, of course, 20/20. "

If you read the rest of the statement, you would see that I was saying the 2002 CIA report and other reports relied on inferences, not conclusive fact. If the right hadn't pushed this so much, perhaps it wouldn't have been force-fed.

"Self-preservation is exactly what it looks like. The ability to protect oneself from another. If Iran is a threat to the US then the United States had better be protecting itself from it."

And thus the fallacy of preemptive measures is endorsed. The best defense is pacifism, not an offense; if the US had never became a world power, we wouldn’t be worrying about terrorists attacking us. Now, because the Iran has frozen its program and has told us what it will do if attacked or if negotiations fail, then there’s no need for controversial activity in the country, and definitely no need to believe anti-Iranian claims from dissident natives. The CIA will resume its activities, however, and in the short term save us (perhaps) but also create a gap in foreign trust if the Iranians find out we’ve penetrated their inside.

"But you do trust them enough to take their word that the enriched Uranium they are producing will only be used to build power plants, and not nuclear weapons."

I trust the IAEA, as they’ve found no evidence of such activities. Iran is questionable, but not in the status quo of events.

"Diplomacy is one possible solution to the present problem, but should the United States not consider other solutions, in a contingency role if anything? Let us not put all of our eggs in one basket, to use an old analogy."

We’ve done just that by becoming imperialist and offensively depending, which is the least logical decision to be made. Diplomacy should still be the vanguard choice in the sphere of other options, save rare exceptions.

"Once again, negotiation is not something I disagree with. Instead it is the idea that the US should limit itself to only negotiation; all avenues should be left open if possible, even militaristic ones. Still, you missed my original point. Iran considers the United States a hostile nation and is therefore a threat to the United States. Remaining ever vigilante is not a vice."

Instigating conflict is a vice, especially when it leads to war. I understand your willingness to support the negotiations, and the state-deemed need (military need) for intelligence. I want you to understand I don’t trust the Iranians fully, and that military action is very unavoidable here.

"Such as? At this point it has become apparent that you consider almost everything the United States government part of an imperalistic policy. "

Yes, and so do objective sources. In fact, any encyclopedia will state American imperialism began in the late 19th century/early 20th century. "Defense if offense" is definitely, undeniably imperialistic however, a petty excuse for whimsical and substance-lacking endeavors, as Bush has conveyed.

"If you will look at history there has never been a docile world power. Ever."

I agree with Giygas, there should be no world power, despite my last statement.

"Do you mean the isolationism of the early twentieth century or the true imperialism of the late nineteenth century? Neither would work well, as times have changed."

I mean not goading war, strife, dissent, death, etc.; all the things that superpowers (naturally imperialistic) exhibit and bear. The neocon imperialism is for personal ends, and America should be meeker internationally instead of being a bully. When true harm is presented, or humanitarian crimes committed, then military is applicable.

"You also support those beliefs, because as a marxist communist the United States government represents nothing more then the enemy to the goals of your revolution. Actually, let's not be coy about this, the US is your enemy. If you follow the logic that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", then it will make perfect sense you support Iran."

It is low to result to picking at my socialist tendencies in this debate. Yes, I believe in the socialist state, and the resulting communist society (as this implies no imperialism), but you should have assumed (I’m guessing) I have neither the full desired education of these ideals and have no means as of now to practice them. Having said that, I also care for the American people’s safety. While Bush may be my enemy (even if I wasn’t a socialist), I still can judge accordingly any practical or impractical measures of any US party in office. In this case, Bush is a tenacious dolt.

"Indeed, let the revolution begin." – Again, I don’t have faith in an American revolution. I do have faith in the Maoists in Nepal, however.

"Wait, prove to Iran that it isn't worthy of our trust or Iran's trust?" – What I meant to say was that the US has proven itself untrustworthy to all of Iran.

"Just as you fail to see the world through any other standpoint from the point of view of the revolutionary. Why would you consider the government worthy of your trust when you see capitalist pigs and fatcats around every corner, pulling every string?"

Because the state, despite its self-inflicted impediments, can make rational decisions (outside the economy) concerning humanity.

Bush is one of the most irrational leaders in American history.
Calvin Fitzgerald chapter 1 . 2/10/2005
"It matters a great deal, because if we can figure out the root of the problem, we can devise a solution to it."

Which makes perfect sense. If we really wanted to get the root of the problem we ought to blame the British and the Russians for running roughshod over the rights of Iranians throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. British Imperialism set the stage for the Iranian regime in power today. In reality the United States is simply cleaning up the mess left by the European powers.

"therefore, the solution is to dicontinue the policy of intervening in other countries' sovereign affairs-including telling Iranians what they can and cannot do in their own sovereign country, as if it were a province of the US."

Let totalitarian regimes with dismal human right records off the hook then eh? For a liberal that is not very compassionate at all.

"No, that would be you."

Au Contraire. That would be you.

"I don't push conspiracy theories. I'm just honest and frank about how things are."

I am fairly sure that the paranoid do not actually realize they are suffering from paranoia. As long as you see the Federal government behind everything you might as well start calling yourself Fox Mulder.

"This is morally unacceptable as far as I am concerned."

This is coming from a man who spends his time defending regimes that have the same human rights record as Nazi Germany. Morality is not something you seem to be able to quite grasp at the moment.

"Surely, understanding the truth is more profitable than defending every little thing the US government does for want of being a good little Republican."

Surely, understanding the truth is more profitable then attacking every little thing the US Government does for want of being a good little member of the counterculture. To quote you: See I can play that game too!

"Iran is not currently a threat to the United States."

Iran is a threat to the United States as long as it considers the United States an enemy. If you cannot even concede this point, which is almost a non-issue, then why are you here? You ought to be out ranting with Michael Moore. And you talk about understanding the truth?

"There shouldn't be ANY "world power."

And yet there is, and always has been. You missed the point entirely. Once again, blinding yourself from reality.

"Oh, really? Switzerland seems to make it work quite well."

You have taken my quote out of context. I thought I had made myself quite clear when I pointed out to Holocaustpulp that the isolationist policies, and here I meant the United States, would not work today because times have changed. Switzerland has been nuetral for a long, long time. (And not entirely neutral if you can recall exactly how much stolen Jewish property has been recovered from their bank vaults. So much for that argument.)

"There's nothing wrong with isolationist foreign policy"

No, there is not. But at the moment, for the United States it is simply not practical to drop everything and return to foriegn policy of the 1920's.

"if we applied it we could spare our country and others much death and destruction and political bullshit."

Not really as nature abhorrs a vaccuum. There would be some other world power interfering in other nations business and conducting wars overseas, possibly even in North America. If anything we ought to count our blessings.

Calvin Fitzgerald
Giygas666 chapter 1 . 2/9/2005
"Whether or not there is a reason for why Iran considers us the enemy means very little. As long as they consider the US an enemy they are a threat."

It matters a great deal, because if we can figure out the root of the problem, we can devise a solution to it. In this case it is the US government's actions that have bred this situation we face with Iran. therefore, the solution is to dicontinue the policy of intervening in other countries' sovereign affairs-including telling Iranians what they can and cannot do in their own sovereign country, as if it were a province of the US.

"You highlight your own willingness to blind yourself from the truth, and consequently do more harm to your argument then not."

No, that would be you.

"I entertain your conspiracy theories."

I don't push conspiracy theories. I'm just honest and frank about how things are. You on the other hand constantly defend a government that does great harm to people in this and other countries (and that is a point you must learn to accept), while using conspiracy theories to justify itself. This is morally unacceptable as far as I am concerned.

"Why not play a docile world power, or emulate the US before the 20th century foreign policy wise? Do neutral countries usually have war declared on them? I support my beliefs on the foriegn policy because so far you have a bad record to back up your ideology."

See, Calvin? holocaustpup gets it! Why can't you? Surely, understanding the truth is more profitable than defending every little thing the US government does for want of being a good little Republican.

"My God, must No Trust continue to spew his bigoted drivel day in and day out? With his talk of gangs and con-men, not to mention his baseless accusations. What bad form. What poor taste."

Jesus, kid, lighten up and stop with the crocodile tears.

"Whatever punk. You’re just mad because my ivory tower is taller, wider, and veinier than yours will ever be."

"Alas, when his arguments fail, No Trust is forever returning to the stature of his ivory tower. To call it overcompansation would be a mistake. I prefer a inferiority complex."

Oh gawd... XD

"If Iran is a threat to the US then the United States had better be protecting itself from it."

Iran is not currently a threat to the United States.

""Why not play a docile world power..."

"If you will look at history there has never been a docile world power. Ever."

There shouldn't be ANY "world power."

"Do you mean the isolationism of the early twentieth century...? [It wouldn't] work well, as times have changed."

Oh, really? Switzerland seems to make it work quite well. So do many other countries. There's nothing wrong with isolationist foreign policy-if we applied it we could spare our country and others much death and destruction and political bullshit.
No Trust chapter 2 . 2/9/2005
What a fucking retard. Almost as dumb as that fucknut nigger Admiral.
Calvin Fitzgerald chapter 1 . 2/9/2005
And lo, the bigoted fool returns to hollering at the people below from his perch. "Polycentric governance," he shouts at them. "Pity-party victimology groups," he decries. Perhaps he might take his own advice, and make the world a better place?

Calvin Fitzgerald
No Trust chapter 1 . 2/9/2005
“And No Trust, concerning your remarks on "kikes," you come off as a pure racist, though I see where you're coming from. Nonetheless, keep the derogatory terms to yourself.”

I despise all pity-party victimology groups with an ungodly fury and reserve the right to use ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ or ‘homophobic’ language in depicting them. Anyone who does not like this is welcome to eat a bullet and make the world a better place.

“It should be pointed out that if one truly fears a nuclear war then one would also fear the proliferation of weapons which make said war much more likely to happen. Especially the proliferation of those weapons in the hands of nations that consider the western world hostile to their regimes.”

Nuclear proliferation IS a good thing. Nuclear proliferation is the only thing that kept the Cold War a (relatively) cold one, and for that matter a non-nuclear one. Nuclear proliferation is a good thing for exactly the same reason an armed society is a polite society.

“You also trust the heads of state of a theocratic totalitarian regime more then you trust the "Feds". What does that say about you?”

It is not necessary to ‘trust’ one more than the other. It is only necessary to analyze who profits from doing what.

“Competition for resources and assets, not to mention religion and ideology, create enemies and breed discourse between states.”

Yes, since states are inherently socialist they tend to reduce everything to war. All the more reason to champion political dispersion/ property rights in severalty/widespread distribution of military grade weapons.

”Intelligence is a tool used to gain the upper hand in the struggle for resources and assets. Just the fact that a state uses intelligence does not guarantee that a state will fail.”

The fact that a state is large enough to interfere with the affairs of people on the other side of the world means that its golden age is over. It is all downhill from here.

”Self-preservation is exactly what it looks like. The ability to protect oneself from another. If Iran is a threat to the US then the United States had better be protecting itself from it.”

Iran is a threat to the US government in the same way as an armed homeowner is a threat to anyone who breaks into his home.

”If you will look at history there has never been a docile world power. Ever.”

If you will look at history there has never been a world power whose predilection for conflict and expansion and satellite state warfare has not been its downfall. Ever. Beng a superpower ain't all it's cracked up to be.

”Do you mean the isolationism of the early twentieth century or the true imperialism of the late nineteenth century? Neither would work well, as times have changed.”

People always say that like it’s some kind of magical phrase that ends all debate, without ever explaining what it MEANS. Human nature has not changed and can not change. People still like eating good food, living in comfort, and making money and babies same as they always have. Technology has changed, and if anything this age is the end of the state and a return to polycentric governance. If so, then it’s foolish to place so much of your hope for America in its ruling gang of naked emperors.

Also, there are countries that are ‘isolationist’ that do just fine.

“Alas, when his arguments fail, No Trust is forever returning to the stature of his ivory tower. To call it overcompansation would be a mistake. I prefer a inferiority complex.”

My arguments didn’t ‘fail’.
Calvin Fitzgerald chapter 1 . 2/8/2005
"Nuclear power isn't something I fear, but nuclear war is. I along with a good portion of America and most of Europe believe the US is instigating the nuclear problem by using an imperialist foreign policy."

It should be pointed out that if one truly fears a nuclear war then one would also fear the proliferation of weapons which make said war much more likely to happen. Especially the proliferation of those weapons in the hands of nations that consider the western world hostile to their regimes.

"I trust Hersh more than than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and the rest of the Feds who uphold lies, and that are now creating backstabbing problems that are in the blind spot of the American public."

You also trust the heads of state of a theocratic totalitarian regime more then you trust the "Feds". What does that say about you?

""Intelligence" is one of the reasons why states inevitably fall, because intelligence creates enemies."

Competition for resources and assets, not to mention religion and ideology, create enemies and breed discourse between states. Intelligence is a tool used to gain the upper hand in the struggle for resources and assets. Just the fact that a state uses intelligence does not guarantee that a state will fail.

"Overstretched and short. Hence, attacking Iran would not be the "opportune moment.""

Yes, overstreched. Which is why the United States government is not, currently, attacking Iran. You continue to make my point for me.

"The Republicans pushed it the most, the indulgent believed it."

Or, the Republicans pushed it, and the Democrats supported it, as the public backed it, and then pretended they didn't to garner the support of the pacifist wing of their party.

"Looking back..."

Which is always fun to do, because, hindsight is, of course, 20/20.

"Self-preservation in this case is another word an imperialist agenda, something that the whole world differs with greatly."

Self-preservation is exactly what it looks like. The ability to protect oneself from another. If Iran is a threat to the US then the United States had better be protecting itself from it.

"The Mullahs aren't fucking over my country and lying (for instance, it stalled its nuclear program). Besides, I don't fully trust them..."

But you do trust them enough to take their word that the enriched Uranium they are producing will only be used to build power plants, and not nuclear weapons.

"...diplomacy is the solution to the presented problem..."

Diplomacy is one possible solution to the present problem, but should the United States not consider other solutions, in a contingency role if anything? Let us not put all of our eggs in one basket, to use an old analogy.

"Yeah, we did install the puppet dictator Shah into their country - we're the big imperialist enemy "on the block" to Iran, but that doesn't mean negotiation is then inevitably a no-no."

Once again, negotiation is not something I disagree with. Instead it is the idea that the US should limit itself to only negotiation; all avenues should be left open if possible, even militaristic ones. Still, you missed my original point. Iran considers the United States a hostile nation and is therefore a threat to the United States. Remaining ever vigilante is not a vice.

"If the US government did nothing imperialistic abroad..."

Such as? At this point it has become apparent that you consider almost everything the United States government part of an imperalistic policy.

"Why not play a docile world power..."

If you will look at history there has never been a docile world power. Ever.

"or emulate the US before the 20th century foreign policy wise?"

Do you mean the isolationism of the early twentieth century or the true imperialism of the late nineteenth century? Neither would work well, as times have changed.

"I support my beliefs on the foriegn policy because so far you have a bad record to back up your ideology."

You also support those beliefs, because as a marxist communist the United States government represents nothing more then the enemy to the goals of your revolution. Actually, let's not be coy about this, the US is your enemy. If you follow the logic that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", then it will make perfect sense you support Iran.

"I'm going with No Trust and the inevitable decline of the extrvagant, power-hungry society on this one."

Have fun. Just watch out for his tower.

"The government has proven it is not worthy of our trust..."

Indeed, let the revolution begin.

"...likewise, the US has proven to Iran that it isn't worthy of our trust.."

Wait, prove to Iran that it isn't worthy of our trust or Iran's trust?

"You fail to see this standpoint, and thus you keep righteously goading the problem."

Just as you fail to see the world through any other standpoint from the point of view of the revolutionary. Why would you consider the government worthy of your trust when you see capitalist pigs and fatcats around every corner, pulling every string?

Calvin Fitzgerald
holocaustpulp chapter 2 . 2/8/2005
To Calvin and No Trust: there's no need to continue a petty ego battle, so drop it. And No Trust, concerning your remarks on "kikes," you come off as a pure racist, though I see where you're coming from. Nonetheless, keep the derogatory terms to yourself. To Giygas6: thanks for the suggestions.

(now the original debate) Calvin: "Makes sense, as long as you don't fear nuclear proliferation, as it appears you do not. "

Nuclear power isn't something I fear, but nuclear war is. I along with a good portion of America and most of Europe believe the US is instigating the nuclear problem by using an imperialist foreign policy.

"Indeed it was, but still it should have been no surprise to anyone. Also, until some proof actually surfaces or the administration admits that it has men on the ground, which it does, don't get me wrong, it is still alleged and no more then an accusation."

I trust Hersh more than than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and the rest of the Feds who uphold lies, and that are now creating backstabbing problems that are in the blind spot of the American public.

"Iran surely has people collecting information on the United States, why shouldn't we have men in Iran? Intelligence is just one more tool of the state, why deny it a, in this age, vital tool?"

"Intelligence" is one of the reasons why states inevitably fall, because intelligence creates enemies. Nonetheless, our iffy CIA shoudln't be doing covert operations in Iran anyway when the US and Europe should unite to diplomatically solve a dormant nuclear stance in Iran.

"Sure, I would agree with that, especially when you note that the US is overstretched, not facing a shortage. " - Overstretched and short. Hence, attacking Iran would not be the "opportune moment."

"Do not blame only Republicans for some failure you see in Iraq. If you will recall Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution and endorsed the war effort, including John Kerry. "

The Republicans pushed it the most, the indulgent believed it. Looking back, inconclusively CIA reports were enough to dispell apprehensions concerning Iraq. besides, everyone knows Bush wanted to link 9/11 to Iraq (which he has actually successfully done to the public) by asking specifically if Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 after the bombings.

"You are ignoring the fact that the surplus was only on paper, it was never a guarantee. Since FDR and the New Deal the United States has always been in a substantial deficit."

You're right: with GDP rates, deficits are even worse. That's why the deficit in the 80s was exceptionally bad, though in actual money it didn't surpass todays deficit. It did have a GDP rate of 6 though, while todays is around 3.5. The mentioned major deficit was under Reagan... I'm not surprised. The deficit is still something extremely significant to consider and treat.

"Of course Iran has the right to attack us. The point being that the US, out of self preservation, make sure that Iran never has the ability to launch a nuclear attack. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. And my arguments are inane." - Self-preservation in this case is another word an imperialist agenda, something that the whole world differs with greatly.

"What amazes me is that you are more willing to trust a group of religious theocrats in Iran more so then you would trust the American Government. "

The Mullahs aren't fucking over my country and lying (for instance, it stalled its nuclear program). Besides, I don't fully trust them, I more believe diplomacy is the solution to the presented problem, or rather the American-created problem.

"Whether or not there is a reason for why Iran considers us the enemy means very little. As long as they consider the US an enemy they are a threat. It is as simple as that."

Yeah, we did install the puppet dictator Shah into their country - we're the big imperialist enemy "on the block" to Iran, but that doesn't mean negotiation is then inevitably a no-no.

"Exactly, because no matter what the United States does in its foriegn policies it will always, in your opinion, be wrong. You highlight your own willingness to blind yourself from the truth, and consequently do more harm to your argument then not. "

If the US government did nothing imperialistic abroad, I wouldn't mind. Why not play a docile world power, or emulate the US before the 20th century foreign policy wise? Do neutral countries usually have war declared on them? I support my beliefs on the foriegn policy because so far you have a bad record to back up your ideology.

"I suggest, and here I hope you take me seriously if you do not at any other time, you take a look at world history. What you will find there is a long string of endless wars with every country, at one point or the other, initiating attacks on others. It would appear that most nations, clans, tribes, etc. have followed that logic, since the dawn of the human race."

I'm going with No Trust and the inevitable decline of the extrvagant, power-hungry society on this one.

"It does not surprise me at all that you do not trust the American Government. It is far, far more fun to entertain X-Files-esque conspiracies."

The government has proven it is not worthy of our trust, likewise, the US has proven to Iran that it isn't worthy of our trust (the whole Iraq alliance in the Iran-Iraq War and all). You fail to see this standpoint, and thus you keep righteously goading the problem.
Calvin Fitzgerald chapter 3 . 2/8/2005
Alas, when his arguments fail, No Trust is forever returning to the stature of his ivory tower. To call it overcompansation would be a mistake. I prefer a inferiority complex.

Calvin Fitzgerald
49 | Page 1 2 3 .. Last Next »