>> ^ledpup:
If you like, read this article from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/alliance.html
It is untrue that the US provided the IRAQI regime with weapons (chemical or otherwise). They did provide them, as Zakaria said, with agricultural credits, as well as with "dual-use" items which were not inherently military items, but would be vital to any war-time situation. That said, even if it were true that the US provided Iraq with weapons during the iran-iraq war, it doesn't negate the fact that this regime under ahmedinejad is a brutal and repressive one, and is trying to cover up this fact as much as they can.

Ba baw! United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war. But hey, nice try. Oh, also interesting, the Iran-Contra Affair.


Are you really trying to put this to bed with a WIKIPEDIA article? Yeesh.

I mean, I am no apologist for US foreign policy, and Zakaria has indeed been accused of being one in the past, so I am not surprised this is a 'thing.' Still, all the items listed in the above article would be categorized as dual-use. And I mean, yeah, its pretty ugly what we did, even if we didn't directly provide them with weapons. But I think the original point was how idiotic is was for this guy to pull that shit out when we're talking about the current wrongs of the iranian regime.

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies:
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

That may be (I don't believe it) but I'm responding to this video where Reza cites the IAEA in 2003.

Citing "U.S. intelligence agencies" doesn't give me a lot of confidence considering they did not in fact know India had nukes (yes they knew they were pursuing them. Germans were pursuing them in WW2. I mean "had nukes" as in they actually had them. Ready to use. It was 1973 when India detonated one to the shock of intelligence communities around the world) .. But of course this is the intelligence apparatus that determined there were WMD's in Iraq.

Shouldn't Israel then as well. Instead of telling the Palestinians what form of existence they should enjoy? I mean honestly you talking about a nation whose power structure was assassinated by the CIA for oil rights brought in a corrupt Shah. Eventually lead to the Islamic revolution. No US dialog has been maintained since. It's like me kicking over someones sand castle and then becoming shocked at their attempt to punch me in the face.

You're changing the whole argument here to something that has nothing to do with this video. Now it's about Israel and Palestine. I know it's America's fault somehow because you mentioned oil and the Shaw. Not sure what is your point though? Does Iran resent and hate us because of the Shaw yet the people in the street now want to engage us and move past that? Bonus points if you can actually make it relate to this video.

Should Israel dial back it's rhetoric of what? That it will defend itself? They are faced with an enemy that is bent on their destruction. Iran. A sovereign state has made it a mandate that they will seek the extinction of this people. That's kind of rude huh? One of the main stumbling blocks for US foreign policy is Israel. Is that because Israel is so fucked up or because there are so many Islamic run regimes that are committed heart and soul to seeing Israel annihilated? Personally, it doesn't matter how you look at it .. they are our allies, and like Britain, Australia, Japan or any of America's trusted friends .. we are bound to defend and support them. It would be a lot easier to turn our back on our allies, but that isn't going to happen.

Is a nuclear armed North Korea? Russia? US? Seems to be alot of tolerance for that there. A state a believe far more willing to put its entire population at nuclear apocalypse.

I actually don't know what that last sentence means. Sorry.
Would the world be better if no one had nukes? Maybe. Will it be better if everyone has nukes? Of course not.

First strike policy is not pursued by any state. Actually, I think that's bullshit. Every nuclear state is trying to develop a first strike plan. We already know such plans exist with "acceptable losses" and such. The good news is M.A.D. has been affective and no one has really figured out an acceptable first strike strategy, yet. The problem is people like money, and what one state uses as a deterrent another emerging state uses as ransom. Iran and other "rogue" states could not actually assure destruction of the US the way the Soviets could during the cold war. So M.A.D. doesn't apply. It's just a threat .. like the Somali pirates. Fear our power. Pay the ransom. Iran (like N. Korea) see nukes as an an extortion tool. A bargaining chip. A chance to wield power and control a spot at the table of world affairs. Some of this is "give in to us or we sell it to others".

We know there are groups out there though that don't fear any retaliation. They don't have a state, don't give a shit if their people live or die because they are on a "mission from God" (sorry Blue's Brothers) .. and those groups buy these technologies from rouge states. So any state emerging with that technology deserves international scrutiny. Obviously.

We can't let every nation on Earth become nuclear states. If you want to argue about the US, Russia, China, etc and other nations that already have them then the only way to solve the problem is to build a time machine. Those nations already have them now and the only way to deal with it is to draw down the numbers of weapons in the stockpiles. Not increase the threat to the entire world by adding new members to the club.

Lastly, I specifically said it was not the Iranian people in general that are the problem, but the hard line psychos in charge. Yet, don't forget there are demonstrations in the streets for Ahmadinejad too. So they say.

Hey Kerotan, I fail to see how this tragic event was so different from any other major tragedies around the globe.

Casualties of Hillsborough were victims of mismanagement as you say, and probably had nothing to do with the construction/management of the facility besides supporting the team that owned that stadium.

On 9-11, countless working family members and brave firemen have died even when they had nothing to do with US foreign policies in middle east besides having an American Citizenship.

Non-Americans tends to categorize 9-11 as news in foreign affairs, but we Americans still see it as a national tragedy, a unnecessary hate crime that sacrificed innocent victims. Unlike the non-Americans, we cannot detach all the emotions and simply calling it a 'political event'.

Both events victimized countless innocent lives. Both were unnecessary.

I hope I don't come off trying to size up 'whose tragedy was worse'. I'm only trying to state that no matter your country of origin, you should show some respect toward others loss if life, no matter your political stance.

Of course, if you didn't mean it this way, and I've misunderstood your intentions, then my apologies for raising my voice.

And for future Islam invocations, gwaan's intent for the old collective was painfully clear:

"This collective is dedicated to celebrating the rich tapestry of Islamic culture - from the Moorish heritage of Andalusia to the Sufi traditions of China. It is a place for celebrating the languages, cultures, traditions, musics, and arts of all Islamic peoples. It hopes to show the other side of Islamic countries like Iran, Palestine, Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia - the side rarely shown by Western media. It also aims to dispel the oft-repeated myth of a 'clash of civilizations' and expose those in politics and media who cultivate this myth in order to achieve certain political objectives. Finally, it is a place for discussing the key theological, social, and political issues which dominate the Islamic world: Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, US foreign policy, British foreign policy, imperialism, democracy, sectarianism, 'terrorism', oil, the Islamic state, Islamic law - interpretation and legal authority, women's rights, minorities' rights, Islamic identity in the West, the public image of Islam, the future of Islam.

From time to time I'll post some important news stories from/concerning the Islamic world which will appear in the comments section of the collective."


I miss gwaan. I miss me.

Us foreign policy in action!

Did the mother wait 12 years while offering the kid "sanctions" he then used as toilet paper?

Also: fake.

Us foreign policy in action!

I'm surprised by prop 8, and I am surprised a bit that such a thing could pass in California, but of all the myriad issues, gay marriage is pretty close to the bottom for me.

Yes, I think bans on it are backward and small minded, but there are plenty of people out there who think torture & no diplomacy should be permanent parts of US foreign policy.

There are people who think it's okay to kill doctors who work at abortion clinics, people who think tax cuts for the middle class are welfare, and that private citizens should be able to anonymously purchase military assault rifles.

There are people who think Democrats are Communists, and that anyone who doesn't believe every word of what Rush Limbaugh says is a mindless zombie brainwashed by the "liberal" media.

We lost one battle on one issue in CA, but Michelle Bachmann, who called for an investigation into which Congresspersons are "anti-American" got re-elected.

Alaska has very nearly re-elected a convicted felon as a Senator, and Sarah Palin is still a Governor of a state, with people hoping she'll run for President in 2012.

I want gay marriage rights to be granted, and with the name "marriage", not civil unions, but there are frankly bigger fish to fry right now.

We lost one battle, but we won 20. Prop 8 won't stand for long if we turn the tide of public opinion in this country, and I think we've started to do that.

Screw mccain's foreign policy screw the current us foreign policy

His sentiment is probably meant to be 'democracies don't invade democracies,' which doesn't contradict the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, but he deserves all the criticism he'll get because his careless wording is just reinforcing the picture of US foreign policy as hypocritical and unreflective.

Most of what Wright said at the press club was right. The wrong parts were all the stuff about God, the presumption that the attack on him had anything to do with an attack on the black church as a whole, and the lowbrow delivery.

Most of what Wright is being attacked for is just saying the same things about foreign policy that Ron Paul and retired generals have been saying all along -- that muslim hatred of the USA is blowback from US foreign policy of the past (such as the CIA-backed coups in Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, etc., and uncritical US support of Israel's land grab).

AIPAC calls the shots when it comes to US foreign war policy. I keep coming back to this speech and thinking, how do you begin to fix a political system that is entirely corrupt?

Anti-Americanism = Not trusting the US government and it's foreign policies.

Anti-Americanism <> Hating the US population, wanting it to dissappear, wanting it to go away.

America is a country built on a ideas and ideals that have been stripped away in a mere 6 years, there was anti-Americanism before Bush but its only in this decade that we have seen a complete loss in confidence in the US foreign policy. However that does not mean people hate America implicitly, we still consume media from the US, it produces some of the best research and technological innovations, people still flock to it as a land of opportunity and for their education.

However liking America for those factors does not mean the rest of the world should simply agree to each and every course that the US takes. The worldwide protests against the War in Iraq showed this, they took place all over the world, within the US and outside of it.

The video tries to make it sound like Anti-Americanism is almost equal to wanting America to be destroyed. That's a stupid argument meant to degrade a rational argument to gut level emotions and wounded patriotism.

I mean how else do you get shit like French Fries being renamed as Freedom Fries as if an act like that is revolutionary. This is simply manipulation meant to create boundaries between dialog.

For context see the related videos section below, in particular:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-influence-of-AIPAC-on-US-Foreign-Policy

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I lost interest around the middle of season 2. The Pegasus captain being a supermodel stretched my suspension of disbelief to the breaking point.

Also, got a bit tired how they were always trying to go for the parallels in US foreign policy.

I also found the cast all-together too "pretty" with the exception of Tigh and Adama. Apollo is a real milquetoast - and makes me shiver with discomfort when he gets all angsty.

Just my two cubits ...

/does a drive-by SMACK!to his favorite canook.
nice post my man.
ron paul called it "soft fascism".
i agree.
when a government starts to disobey it's own laws and creates laws giving themselves immunity.
when a government has the media as its lapdog and can control the message.
when a government politically controls the judicial branch of justice,and USES it to marginalize political opponents and dissenters.
when a government uses a fearful time to demote civil rights to mere suggestions,all in the name of "national security".
well then....i would say that,while not being a full-fledged "fascist nation",we are heading down a dangerous path with not much path left to change course.
someone here posted the importance of the internet.
i could not agree more.this is the last vestige of free debate and must be protected with fervor.
for those who do not see america's slip towards despotism/fascism.i recommend howard zinn's books.a great historian who does not wear rose colored glases when it comes to american history and foreign policy.another great book is "blowback" by chalmers johnson,former US foreign policy advisor.
till next time..peace.
Enoch.