Iran and America's foriegn policy

[floorlady]

Ok so it seems as though Obama and other politicians are ready to star a war with Iran. However, both China and Russia have said they will back Iran up if America tries to stop them from getting oil. What does everyone think? Would it be in Americas best interest to go to war with Iran?

[Falconer02]

Ok so it seems as though Obama and other politicians are ready to star a war with Iran. However, both China and Russia have said they will back Iran up if America tries to stop them from getting oil. What does everyone think? Would it be in Americas best interest to go to war with Iran?

If this is true and I'm reading your post in the correct ligh, of course not. We're in no shape to go to war (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) nor should we even be talking about going to war. Especially over a substance we should be trying to get away from. The fact that Mitt and Newt were calling Obama a coward for pulling out of the military tests with Israel shows how dangerous and selfish these 2 candidates are. Don't get me wrong- Iran's a pretty screwy place, but we should be trying to improve relations with them if we're truly dependant on what they have. They obviously want to do business with us, so don't *bleep* them off. Ron Paul was the only one who talked sense within this issue the other night.

[sdecaro558]

What you have here is a case of two governments which are at odds and seem to want to go to war, and the peoples under them (namely, Americans and the Iranians) who want no part in a war with one another.  Iran's people have no beef with the US, and I would say most Americans have no inherent problem with Iranians.  If there is a war, it's not the will of the people on either side...  So I would say no, there ought to be no war with Iran.

[floorlady]

Ok so it seems as though Obama and other politicians are ready to star a war with Iran. However, both China and Russia have said they will back Iran up if America tries to stop them from getting oil. What does everyone think? Would it be in Americas best interest to go to war with Iran?

If this is true and I'm reading your post in the correct ligh, of course not. We're in no shape to go to war (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) nor should we even be talking about going to war. Especially over a substance we should be trying to get away from. The fact that Mitt and Newt were calling Obama a coward for pulling out of the military tests with Israel shows how dangerous and selfish these 2 candidates are. Don't get me wrong- Iran's a pretty screwy place, but we should be trying to improve relations with them if we're truly dependant on what they have. They obviously want to do business with us, so don't *bleep* them off. Ron Paul was the only one who talked sense within this issue the other night.

I agree. I think most American's have no idea how close we are to war with Iran, nor do they fully realize what kind of impact it would have not only here but all over the world. Ron Paul has the best foreign policy in my opinion. He would keep us out of irrational wars.

[floorlady]

What you have here is a case of two governments which are at odds and seem to want to go to war, and the peoples under them (namely, Americans and the Iranians) who want no part in a war with one another.  Iran's people have no beef with the US, and I would say most Americans have no inherent problem with Iranians.  If there is a war, it's not the will of the people on either side...  So I would say no, there ought to be no war with Iran.

I think our opinions as American's should matter to the powers that be. If the American people do not want war, than why are they already beating the drums?

[falcon9]

I think our opinions as American's should matter to the powers that be.

They do, to the extent of any impact that'll have on elections however, the general public doesn't actually dictate foreign policy.

If the American people do not want war, than why are they already beating the drums?

As a guess, it might be to send the message to Iran that if sanctions won't prevent them from building a region-destabilizing nuclear capability, then we or the Isrealis will.

[trucktina]

I'll only answer if the others in this thread promise not to call me a "warmonger" or a "big government Republican". I'm a member of the TEA party, so think that lots of spending needs to STOP, and we need to prioritize what we do spend.

That said, Israel is our friend but you wouldn't know it by the actions of this administration. Why shouldn't we work with them and for their security? Those running Iran (not the people or the "government") are allied with a group that refuses to acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. So no, we shouldn't try to be friendly with an enemy of our ally.

[trucktina]

Also, it's spelled "foreign".

[trucktina]

China and Russia have also said the same thing about N. Korea. You'd be alright with the crazy dictator(s) of that country having a nuclear weapon, just because China and Russia like to trade with them?

[falcon9]

Israel is our friend but you wouldn't know it by the actions of this administration. Why shouldn't we work with them and for their security? Those running Iran (not the people or the "government") are allied with a group that refuses to acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist.

The US does "work with" Isreal to the extent of billions in military and economic aid, (as well as diplomatic pressure to 'hold them back' from taking unilateral action against such Arab nations who threaten to 'take out' Isreal).  If Iran looks like its about to deploy nuclear weapons, one of the two allies will likely use conventional military strikes to eliminate that capacity.

[floorlady]

China and Russia have also said the same thing about N. Korea. You'd be alright with the crazy dictator(s) of that country having a nuclear weapon, just because China and Russia like to trade with them?

North Korea already has nuclear weapons, so I fail to see your point on that one. In fact, that is a prime example, why aren't we as serious about North Korea? They have the technology but we do not seem to be concerned. Why is that?

[GramPolly3]

President Eisenhower warned about the rise of the military/industrial complex and its desire to control this country and us as well. We have seen that come to pass in spades. I really think that is what is behind all the saber rattling that is happening now. We have seen what the past few years have wrought on our country and to be honest we should have learned from it. Instead we seem to want to keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Iran is a threat mostly to Israel and that dog is wagging the US tail again. It has always been an unanswered question in my mind why that is so.  It is time that common sense prevail among our leaders, if that is still possible. Let Israel do it's own dirty work if that is what they want.
I know that is simplistic but it is also my bottom line. Whatever world cartel is behind all this needs to be exposed and denied their desire.
Let all the crazies do what they will. Why should our country go down that road when it is totally unnecessary for our well-being?? Just sayin'.

[jkunert]

ok what I'm going to say might make people mad and call me peace loving fool, but i ask you hav an open mind. to me and others maybe having war is pointless all it causes hatred well more.  Yes we have peace for a short time until something that bug us about others. i wish we can get all along.  Stop the hate for race, sex, sex orientation, religion.  


 

[falcon9]

China and Russia have also said the same thing about N. Korea. You'd be alright with the crazy dictator(s) of that country having a nuclear weapon, just because China and Russia like to trade with them?

North Korea already has nuclear weapons, so I fail to see your point on that one. In fact, that is a prime example, why aren't we as serious about North Korea? They have the technology but we do not seem to be concerned. Why is that?

That's partially due to there being no reliable evidence that North Korea has been able to miniaturize a nuclear warhead for use on a ballistic missile they have access to.  Although the currently-deployed missiles in N. Korean inventory do have the range to hit Japan, southeast Asia and possibly Hawaii with varying degress of accuracy, they do not appear to have sufficient technology to mate a nuclear warhead with such missiles at this time.  Currently, neither does Iran.  These things can change in time.

[floorlady]

China and Russia have also said the same thing about N. Korea. You'd be alright with the crazy dictator(s) of that country having a nuclear weapon, just because China and Russia like to trade with them?

North Korea already has nuclear weapons, so I fail to see your point on that one. In fact, that is a prime example, why aren't we as serious about North Korea? They have the technology but we do not seem to be concerned. Why is that?

That's partially due to there being no reliable evidence that North Korea has been able to miniaturize a nuclear warhead for use on a ballistic missile they have access to.  Although the currently-deployed missiles in N. Korean inventory do have the range to hit Japan, southeast Asia and possibly Hawaii with varying degress of accuracy, they do not appear to have sufficient technology to mate a nuclear warhead with such missiles at this time.  Currently, neither does Iran.  These things can change in time.

Exactly. It's war rhetoric. Although these things can change, why does the government insist on preemptive strikes instead of relying on intel to decide what to do? I think that would be a better way of handling these situations.