I don't doubt that Obama would be highly skeptical of the Iranian theocracy that grips the country. The difference between him and McCain, in my opinion, is that Obama would attempt to talk to them and would do so without the "baggage" of the Bush Administration and without running as the GOP candidate who largely supports Bush's foreign policy agenda (such as it is). It makes it more likely that he might make some headway with them, IMO, but I don't think he would approach the Iranian question with any illusions as to who he's dealing with. Impeach Bush.
You are stuck on this right/wrong dichotomy. It is only better FOR ME when my government interferes in others, but they don't interfere in mine. I thought if I dumbed it down you would get it. Using your bully analogy, it is more like a bully that has a kid pinned and is demanding his lunch money, then the kid takes a swing and pops the bully in the face. After that, you know what happens? The bully doesn't say, "well since I hit you it is only fair for you to hit me as well," the bully starts wailing on the kids face. Just because someone is a bully, that does not mean they will not react when their victim hits them. I can use any quote I want. You choose to use one interpretation, I use another. As I said, even using your interpretation, calling to wipe out the government of Israel (the "occupying regime") is still a threat to Israel. Good for you. I disagree. I think if you see something that you think should be changed, you should try to change it. Hardly analogous to Iran's relationship to Hezballah. Seems to me since we are not funding or commanding them, they are specifically NOT our proxies. Even so, I will admit that it is nice that they are acting in our interests and that we are advising them. It depends on the alternative. I would prefer a pro-America democracy to a dictatorship, as was the goal in invading Iraq. On the other hand, I would prefer a pro-America dictatorship to an anti-American Muslim theocracy. So no, I don't have a problem with America propping up a pro-American dictator to forestall his overthrow by Muslim radicals (see Pakistan). Nope. Egypt ejected peace keepers in the Sinai and blocked passage to Israeli ships through the Suez canal, then massed their troops along the border. Hezballah fighters launched a raid into Israel, capturing IDF soldiers (whose fates AFAIK are still unknown). Yeah, they are allowed to move the population on the land they took during the wars which their enemies started, as far as I am concerned. Hardly the act of an aggressor nation. Not keeping the pro-America leader in power has also come back to bite us in the ass (see Iran). At least keeping the pro-America leader in power has some short term benefits. Its laziness. Actually, it was a perfect illustration of my point, not a silly analogy. Bringing up the Iraq war when I was talking about preventing terrorists from getting nukes was equally off topic. I said it was a better tactic to try to stop terrorists from getting nukes than to wait for them to get them, and then try to intercept them at the border. You replied with, what the hell are we doing in Iraq. I didn't mention Iraq. Nope, we tried to remove Saddam from power, completely remove from government everyone that was in the country that had ever worked in government, and then asked a people that were divided into three distinct and adverse groups to vote on who should lead them. There was already a functioning government in Kurdish Iraq (still is as far as I know) that we could have just put in charge, with measures to slowly bring in the rest of the people and with constitutional protections of the interests of all three groups. We went with a more ideologically pure but riskier plan, that led to (not surprisingly) the Shiites taking power. You are assuming facts not in evidence with regard to my bravery or lack thereof. And yes, if they did not want to fight in wars, they should not have joined the military. Warfighting is the purpose of the military. But no, your family members should not expect to be constantly deployed for the next 100 years, because long before that time they will be much to old to be effective soldiers. Yep, we should have stayed there, and if the Saudis didn't like it, too bad for them, because it is pretty tough to uproot the US military from a fortified position. I have advocated for mandatory military service (or some system where military service is required to get certain benefits, such as citizenship) before, and will again. I wouldn't want other countries occupying us, I want us occupying them. Maybe the distinction is too subtle for you. As I said, I understand how that could be inferred from what I wrote, but it was not my intention. Because it related back to the Shah discussion, where the American backed dictator was overthrown by the Muslim extremists, and because it relates forward to a possible consequence of withdrawal from Iraq. Better in some cases than in others. Yep. What we should have done (assuming that we had already installed the Shah) was not let him get overthrown. I guess I misunderstood your quibble with the word let, although I would argue it still fits, because supporting his overthrow still results in letting him be overthrown.
again, a very selfish and hypocritical world view. i would rather my government didnt do harm to others. are you defending the bully? the bully is still in the wrong. most people would agree that the bully is a jerk and deserves whatever they get. yeah, ill go ahead and use the interpretation of islamic and farsi linguist experts - you go ahead and use what the bush administration tells you. who attacked first? the response was totally disproportionate to hezbollahs attack. that seems to be the way israel operates though. i provided a link showing that our own intel says they are 5-10 years away from a nuke. its pretty lame for you to say "i saw an article last week that says they have centrifuges, but i dont feel like looking for it - you do it". this further reinforces the fact that you are a hypocrite. you demand of others what you are unwilling to do. you asked for documentation on something and i was kind enough to provide it, but when others ask you for documentation you refuse, despite the fact that documentation has already been provided which refutes your claims. if this is your attitude than you really arent worthy of any more of my time.
I would rather my government prevent others from doing harm to me. Pax Americana. In a way, yes, I am defending the bully. It is human nature to retaliate, even when you are retaliating to a retaliation. That is why there is not always just one attack followed by one counter, and then everyone goes home. As I said, even using your translation, they are still calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. The state of Israel is the "occupying regime". Depends on what you consider an attack. Is a military blackade removing access to vital shipping lanes an attack? Is the expulsion of peace keepers an attack? Is the obvious buildup of an invasion force along the border an attack? Is the use of targeted air strikes an attack? Is the incursion of ground troops across the border required for an attack? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue. I do not post here to be a research assistant for you or anyone else. If you did not want to provide evidence that the US was launching proxy attacks against Iran, you could have just said so. You are welcome to believe or disbelieve that I read an article about Iranian centrifuges that stated they could have enough material within a yea to make a bomb, I could not really care less either way.
