I may be wrong, and if so I seriously apologize......with that said, this new president is no friend or leader for Iran...
IIRC, Iran was seeking nuclear "energy" prior to their current president taking power. I think one of the main reasons this guy is in power is because he's said he'll seek the formation of nuclear "energy" despite international reservations.
America has NEVER been isolationists. Please read my post upstream. Even in WWII when we "claimed" to be isolationists, we were actively supporting British efforts by sending them supplies key to their war efforts. That is why German U-boats were constantly sinking ships ...because those were merchant ships destined for the UK. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Again, please read my post on page 1. America only aids countries if it is to protect American interests. In Darfur right now, genocide by muslim extremists continues and America is still not engaged because there is no strategic reason to do so. I don't mean to sound like an America hater but to correct our problems, collectively we need to understand reality a little better.
I beg to differ. The majority of Americans were isolationists during the 1930's, and up until Pearl Harbor. The majority in Congress were isolationist as well. FDR, the wily b*stard (and I say that affectionately), did the things you mention secretly, or with begrudging permission from Congress. He wanted to do far more than he was allowed. Lend-Lease was the only way he could get Congressional approval to help Britain in "her darkest hour," at least publicly, and that was sold as good, old-fashioned capitalism, which happened to benefit a friend. Oh, for a man, or woman, who is half the President Roosevelt was, in the Oval Office today. The country cries out for far-sighted, sensible, and effective leadership, and find itself saddled with incompetence. We are in it deep, up to our neck, and we have a man who doesn't know what to do. If there is a God, may he help us all. Keep D&D Civil.
Two reasons: 1) Situations like the Cuban missile crisis have shown us that we cannot afford to take an isolationist view. Also, we are political or economic allies with other countries and we may need to act in order to secure our (and their) interests. now... let's be clear about something else... 2) Money. Most wars are fought not because of religion, or opression, or any of that stuff. It almost always boils down to money. Now, to address some specifics from your post... No, there weren't. The "we need to free them from tyranny" reason wasn't true either. No, no, no. The "spreading democracy" thing is also not true. That's all lies, Stack. We're in Iraq for the same reason we were in 1996: oil. That's it. That's the real reason. We want/need Iraq to be governed by a party that will cooperate well with America and other countries in their oil relations. You see, a president (not just Bush) isn't going to get support from anybody (citizens, politicians, allies, etc.) if he states, "We need to send thousands of troops to die in Iraq so that we can secure our oil relations with them." If a president needs to invade a country because of its oil, or is labor, or its drugs, or its money, or whatever.... the president must come up with some stupid, bullsh!t reason like "spreading democracy" or "securing peace" or some other feel-good reason that people will actually believe in (even if it isn't true). The crux of it is... there may have been (acutally.. I should say "must have been") such in volvements in previous wars that the American people probably never knew about. Bosnia... Gulf War... Vietnam... Korea... Somalia... (even conflicts that are completely unknown to us) there must have been a LOT going on there that is completely unknown to the American people. We don't have to deal with it. Most of us don't want to deal with it. Some of us think we know how to deal with it, but we really don't. But the president has to deal with it. He has do deal with lying, cheating, weasly political entities every friggin' day. And to deal with them, a president must also be lying, cheating, and weasly. That's why it really doesn't bother me if a president is caught lying. But a president's lies should serve the US, not hurt the US. THAT bothers me. Now, I hate Bush. I think he's a crappy president. But I have to say that I really have no idea what the political and economic ramifications are of Iraqi-US oil relations. He does. That's his job. And he felt that this situation was so important to the United States that he flet it was necessary to send a bunch of troops over there to die, and then lie to the American people about it. I don't like that it's been done, I don't like the way it's been done, and I don't like having to trust his judgement about this. But I believe George Bush is a lot more knowledgeable about what he's doing than I am (or most all of the people who criticize him). I question his judgement and his decisions, but I'm willing to accept that he may know more about what he's doing than I do.
I seriously doubt that he does at all, given his overall disdain for intellectual curiosity of any kind and his express preference for delegating that sort of thing. If he did, he'd know that oil is a commodity and Iraq, a founding member of OPEC, sells its oil at the same price that everybody else does: the market price. Of course Iraq's production is barely a drop in the barrrel of global output anyway. There's not a lot more to it than that.
no the main reason he's in power is because the reformers/moderates felt so disenchanted with the impotence of khatami especially after the axis of evil speech and the gov't clampdown that they just didn't vote. secondly i find it incredibly ironic that people keep saying the current presidentof iran is wack. sure. but the whole criticism of iranian democracy is the fact that the president is impotent and the supreme leader controls everything. thats why people got tired of khatami. lets be consistent. and the gov't had a severe reaction to the axis of evil speech. the old notion of 'natl security' was used a lot in iran after the speech.
That's an awfully selfish point of view. I have both Venezuelan and Spanish family, and despite being a naturalized American, I give a **** about those places because I have family living in both countries and I care about their welfare. It may have been different for you, but I was raised with a heavy dose of influence from both cultures (nobody is going to convince me that there's any food better than Spanish food ), and that gives me an interest in the well-being of both of those nations. Of course, there's a downside to this - keeping tabs on the situation in Venezuela has made me quite depressed.
Well, the topic is why does America keep budding into everybody else's business. So my point is and as I've demonstrated, regardless of how many people call themselves "isolationsists," America has a LONG and consistent history of being anything but an isolationist. Even during the 1930's, America was actively influencing political regimes outside it's own boarders ...and I don't recall any mass demonstrations by the people protesting our involvement. So people may call themselves isolationists but that doesn't change the fact that America has been anything but for over 150 years. Agreed.
"Secure our Interests" That is the scary part. I know it is increasingly hard to be an isolationist in modern times. But America should generally not act proactively simply to "secure our interests" ...at least not militarily. That is why the rest of the world frowns on American foreign policy. Generally speaking, if our primary concern is to "secure our interests," then these type of things need to be addressed diplomatically. ...not by sending in troops. Bosnia is a great example of utilizing your miliatary for humanitarian purposes. I wish we'd do the same in Darfur. But Iraq was NOT a humanitarian effort.
You shouldn't respond on the immigration issue. Pretty much everything you stated up here is either inaccurate or dead wrong.
