IRAN-“America is The Greatest Threat to World Peace”
In reply to American accusations that Iran tops the list of world trouble spots Iranian - President Mohammad Khatami stated that it is in fact the United States which endangers global peace.
Khatami also said that he doesn’t expect a change in US policy in the near future and added "If America wants to invade Islamic Iran it must know that there is no limit to our defense and we have the capability to smash their heads....."
He also reiterated that Iran’s nuclear program is purely concentrated on the production of electricity and not on the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
I am American and I think I might have to agree with them on this one. Bush started against IRaq with no solid evidence and we are still there over a year later. Now we are looking at attacking Iran. We went over there to stop terrisiom now we are trying to stop and control everything. Why dont we have Bin Laden yet he was more of threat to us then Saddam Was.
Sorry, I have obviously missed something here. Where does the Bible predict such things? And how many predictions in the Bible have either been open to any interpretation or have simply not occured?
Yea I believe that Bush IS the greatest threat this world has had to endure since Hitler rose to power, but the fact remains that that idiot was actaully voted for AGAIN by the US citizens. He won with outstanding results which makes ME wonder if he's the only terrifying person there...
Some people think with their emotions and not with logic. GW attacked Iraq for one thing. To get rid of the man that tried to murder his daddy. He doesn't give a shit about Iraq or WMD. That was just a reason to use to get all the gullible people to jump on board and support him. Now that Saddam is gone, he doesn't really give two-shits about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, China, or any other freaking place. He got what he wanted, now it's all just chest-beating. So all you war-mongers out there giving scenarios about confrontations with places like China or Iran, just drop it. It’s just stupid and it's not going to happen.
Strange if the US has men on the ground in Iran (according to that recent report I'm sure we all heard) recording sites to airstrike, and then denying it, that's hardly chest-beating, is it? That's planning for a war with Iran, a war that's probably been in the planning for a long long time. And war with North Korea? Unlikely, I agree, he doesn't want to be known as the president that got the west side of the USA nuked. And China? USA wouldn't, although China might strike the USA in 10 years or so time.
But at the end of the day, we'll see, and if USA do invade Iran, then I hope you'll concede like everyone else in the world that USA and G.W ARE the greatest threat to world peace.
Or 1 or 2 for that matter? Iran's statement reminds me of an AI civ who's just discovered gunpowder responding to the mass of tanks and artillery just moved across their border last turn. Then you respond "We grow tired of your insolence. Prepare for WAR!" and then, because you didn't realize they had nukes, the whole world goes to shit except for that one tundra island you built a city on that no one else knows about.
I've played it, the slowest game you'll ever play, but pretty good fun too. I might install that in a while now you've reminded me of it. Back on topic, I have to agree with the Iranian guy, sort of. GWB is by far the greatest threat to world peace. In the last 5 years who else has invaded 2 countries, and threatened to invade several other named countries(his "Axis Of Evil")?
By what stretch of the imagination would horsemen pose a serious threat to anyone right now? Sure you couldn't just ignore 200 million of them.. but I'd bet that I, as a civillian, could take out 3 or 4 myself just by jumping in my car and running em down.
Yes, 200 million, but I believe the direct translation is "two hundred thousand thousand". I'm not so sure they would know the exact amount to count in those days. Was "million" even a word or could it be expressed accurately then?
However some prophecies have already come to pass. May be worth looking into.
It meant lawyers? Or businessmen? That's the only thing I can imagine 200million people of..200million american lawyers! AHHHH, now THAT's a scary sight! But seriously, enslaving people through economy, or corrupt liers that are suppose to bring justice, they pose one of the biggest evils in the world today. GW would probably not be in power if it wasn't for evil lawyers.
Because it can kill a whole lot of people with one little finger. And I don't think we're in quite the position to blame it all on George W. Bush when we've got people with such crazed and often bigoted opinions, such as:
And of course we can't forget that the Klan is still a problem in several states, and, to top it all off, there's still a huge raging debate not only over whether or not gays get to marry, but also whether gays will _all go to hell_ (except in religions where there is no hell, most of which seem to be pro-gay marriage...point stands).
And as though a war-mongering president, and a widely prejudiced public weren't enough - you can't forget that we have a huge storage of nuclear weapons, as well as countless other things that go boom.
Speaking of death squads - who remembers when we personally funded the genocide in Guatemala? Yeah, those were good times. But not for Mayans.
Oh, on the other hand, we've upped Tsunami relief to nearly $650 million. That being said, the United States usually delivers, statistically, only approximately 33% of its pledges. Plus, that little bit of good is dwarfed by the fact that while African governments claim that four billion dollars a year could double the average African life span, the United States has delivered four billion dollars! - albeit in nearly six years. That's right, less than one billion dollars a year to save lives...nearly one hundred and fifty billion dollars a year to take them.
Yes, I think we can safely conclude that America is one of the deadliest countries in the world - not only through activity in prejudice and war, but also through neglect.
Not only is the US one of the most widely hated countries in the world but quite clearly is a huge threat under the current administration. I would bet that if a war occured between Iran and US, the Us would be considered the bad guys without a shadow of a doubt...
The US is especially deadly now because the president is a powerhungry selfrighteosu idiot and even more importantly half of the country is stupid enough to vote such a man in again.
When you get that combination, you have a country that is pretty much dooming the world along with itself. Bush is already decimating the country's economy, its diplomatic connections, its integrity and everything else - one can only hope he doesn't actually physically decimate the world with an indulgent nuclear weapon.
If there is any man that would be stupid enough to do it, its this man. I would be happy if he was assassinated to be honest.. the world would not mourn his death but I bet we would literally see cheering across many of the cities in the world INCLUDING many US ones. And that is something.
You bitch about how you hate America yet when you want something you bitch how it wasn't GIVEN to you fast enough by America. How much bigger a hypocrite can you possibly get? The simple fact is MOST of you are nothing less than jealous as hell of America. Get over it and stop crying like children. America is only a threat to those that would threaten her, none others. Get used to it. If you mess with the big dog you should expect to get the teeth. Anyone that sides with Iran with meet her fait and it wont be pretty if it hits the fan. Irans stupid ass comments are almost the same as the BS Iraq spewed. "there are no american tanks in Iraq" LOL All Iran has to do to keep the U.S. from kicking her ass is shut her yap, give up making nukes and stay out of Iraq..pretty simple, but the stuipid never learn.
"All Iran has to do to keep the U.S. from kicking her ass is shut her yap, give up making nukes and stay out of Iraq" and "America is only a threat to those that would threaten her, none others."
Ok. so shut her yap. I assume you mean don't say anything nasty about the US. This is a threatening America how?
"give up making nukes" No evidence of making nukes. Possiblities of it, yes. But nothing like the certainty of Israel. Besides this would threaten America how?
"stay out of Iraq". No talk of Iranian soldiers in Iraq. (Unlike US soldiers in Iran...) Besides, this would threaten America how?
The only threat any of these things could be to America is "American interests".
People are only bitching for America to give what they obtained through oppression, theft and murder. Don't forget your country was built on these principles (as many have been). Your only claim to your posessions is the power you have to defend them. That is not a 'right' by any means.
And why should the US be allowed to possess nukes and not Iran? The former is the only country to prove themselves unworthy of posessing such power through irresponsible use. Iran saying "if you hit me, I'll hit you back" does not constitute a threat.
"The simple fact is MOST of you are nothing less than jealous as hell of America"
I think not. The US mindset generally seems to have always operated on a different level to the reality. In the fifties the US banged on about being the champion of the free world, while at the same time having segrigation for whites and blacks. At least South Africa was openly honest about apartheid and its attitude to non-whites, and yet many Americans deplored that system.
I personally have no feelings of jealousy towards the US. I have no feelings of hatred of the US but at the same time I have no great wish to live there either. The Americans as a country have done a lot of good but that doesn't negate the bad that the government has done in recent years. In my mind the US as a 'culture' is overly dependant on consumerism and a false economy, while at the same time it 'whoops up' how great it is. As hard as it may be to accept, the US is way down my (and many others) list of favorite nations. Were it not so brash and imposing on others, that view could change quite considerably.
"Oh, on the other hand, we've upped Tsunami relief to nearly $650 million. That being said, the United States usually delivers, statistically, only approximately 33% of its pledges. Plus, that little bit of good is dwarfed by the fact that while African governments claim that four billion dollars a year could double the average African life span, the United States has delivered four billion dollars! - albeit in nearly six years. That's right, less than one billion dollars a year to save lives...nearly one hundred and fifty billion dollars a year to take them."
I like how you take the highest dollar figure from any one government for tsunami aid and try and turn it into something bad. Plus you don't mention the hundreds of millions of aid dollars given by American citizens. Nor do you mention the massive military support consisting of transport vehicles, medical supplies, generators, food, hospital ships which adds up to extra hundreds of millions if not a few billion dollars. As for Africa, who else is donating this kind of money to Africa? Not to mention, if America is so terrible, why the hell are we helping Africa at all? If we're only sending enough money to help a few people and not make any significant changes, why are we bothering to help at all? After all, isn't the U.S. so terrible, run by the most evil and dangerous man in the world right now?
"Yes, I think we can safely conclude that America is one of the deadliest countries in the world - not only through activity in prejudice and war, but also through neglect."
Check that link out, only Japan even comes close to the U.S. in figures. Hell, they even top us, that's impressive. Sure, other countries give a higher percentage of their total GDP, but so what, they still aren't giving as much as the U.S.
"I would bet that if a war occured between Iran and US, the US would be considered the bad guys without a shadow of a doubt..."
Vswift, I can't wait to shove this one down your throat. The day will come when Iran is dealt with, whether it's through military action or politics, I guarantee the world, outside of your standard Islamic extremists, will be on the side of the U.S.
Vswift, your anti-Americanism takes the cake on this site and it keeps you from making intellectual and logical statements.
"I would be happy if he was assassinated to be honest.. the world would not mourn his death but I bet we would literally see cheering across many of the cities in the world INCLUDING many US ones."
That's funny, didn't the U.S. vote him in by majority??
"No evidence of making nukes. Possiblities of it, yes. But nothing like the certainty of Israel."
You know Israel is our ally right? An ally is a friend.
"Think you need to wake up and smell the coffee mate, the sun doesn't shine out of America's ass."
It doesn't shine out of any countries ass, get over it.
"People are only bitching for America to give what they obtained through oppression, theft and murder. Don't forget your country was built on these principles (as many have been)."
Actually it's built on the exact opposite, escaping oppression. Remember, that's why there was the Revolutionary War, because American's were tired of taxation without representation. As for slavery and the likes, well see, America is only a few hundred years old, we're still growing. We haven't been around for thousands of years like old ass Europe, Asia, and the Mid East. In fact we're still in our growing stages doing the exact same thing we did with England, but on a human rights level. Do we still have slavery? Can women vote? Is Jim Crow still around? Sounds to me like we're still fighting off oppression to me. Is where you live completely free of oppression? I didn't think so. How long have you had to get rid of it compared to America? I thought so.
"And why should the US be allowed to possess nukes and not Iran? The former is the only country to prove themselves unworthy of posessing such power through irresponsible use."
Actually the use of nukes in WWII saved millions of lives of Japanese and American soldiers/citizens. We've been through this discussion many a time on SN and the amount of lives lost due to an invasion of Japan by the U.S. would have equated to much more than the destruction caused by the two nukes. If you don't believe me, just try and think of the U.S. trying to invade the mainland of Japan with forty's technology and battle tactics. Millions would've died. Granted the nukes were terrible, but it's the lesser of two evils.
Give money to Africa to prop up regimes which will extort the wealth of their people's land for our benefit.
We give money to Asia because our politicians want to appear sympathetic and further they feel the people of our country should be the bearers of this now-obligation.
America's actions in the middle of the last century were not glorious or "harm preventative" -- they likely weren't necessary at all.
The old powers lost out in the far east, and America felt all's it need to do is beat back Japan and China would be it's market to exploit.
Well, they were right, but it required some pretense and an even worse conclusion of the war that came to do so.
WWII, as was WWI a EUROPEAN WAR. There have been rashes of them throughout history, and our founders specifically warned against involving ourselves in the old -- or "new" -- rivilaries coming out of that lot.
We didn't listen; for shame.
The Treaty of Versailles was Hitler's means of hoisting himself to power.
A treaty that would have never come if we did not help "defeat" Germany.
We instigated the rise of Hitler with our intrusion into European's affairs.
As to Bush and popular elections, some of us don't believe in this "Democracy" business which is a farce anyway. The majority is not always right, and a Democratic system always seeks to deal with minorities "with preference" because of the nature of it -- the majority often squelches them out otherwise.
We were built a Constitutional Representative Republic. Not a "Democracy."
We merely have populist elections, and even then, the president is not choosen popularly; he is choosen by an Electoral College.
America's history is a bloody one. Some righlty so, some less than that.
We are no saviors and we ought not pretend to be. Empire by any other name, or under the name of "spreading freedom and Democracy" is a farce and everyone who isn't diluting themselves into believing otherwise will state it as such.
Voting has become a wholly rhetorical act; the special interests win no matter who is "elected."
Don't even speak of oppression and tyranny, "taxation without representation;" -- you're kidding yourself.
Bush has been the most horrendous spender since Johnson declared "War on Poverty" -- and he's sent the money, instead of to communities and (albeit, wasted:) to Government agencies, instead to his Corporate friends and overseas to first knock down, for profit, and then rebuild, for profit Iraq.
Pitiful.
Reagan turns in his grave at the thought of GW.
A paltry tax cut in the midst of unfathomable deficit spending and no-bid contracts is beyond irresponsible, it is criminal.
This country is in the wrong, and as a loving defender of it, I don't mind tell it so. You people out in la-la land of neoconservative empire building are asking for the generous Chinese wang to come visit you up the backside not long from now, because of how you have weakend this country.
We are supposed to be a primier World power; and we can barely hang on to a shitbucket such as Iraq.
And "we can handle China."
You people are morons. And we have no decade to first rebuild our economy.
We needed the resources we just unloaded into Iraq. Terrible, terrible brainless, politcally-motivated, corporate-backed shortsighted [un]strategic expenditures.
I will like to see how we manage what will come. It will be a feat on par with what some of the more talented Roman emperors did to keep together Rome.
Pearl Harbour was to do with Europe? The Germans torpedoing US shipping in the Atlantic was not enough to join the 'European' war? The US was attacked along with the Allies, who had already been fighting it for 2 years. This 'Oh America came to save Europe, we did it purely out of Roy Rogers good-vs-evil reasons' is not true. Had the Nazis and the Japs carved up the remaining part of the world, the US would have been screwed, just like the rest of us.
"Actually the use of nukes in WWII saved millions of lives of Japanese and American soldiers/citizens. We've been through this discussion many a time on SN and the amount of lives lost due to an invasion of Japan by the U.S. would have equated to much more than the destruction caused by the two nukes. If you don't believe me, just try and think of the U.S. trying to invade the mainland of Japan with forty's technology and battle tactics. Millions would've died. Granted the nukes were terrible, but it's the lesser of two evils."
Technically speaking, General MacArthur later claimed that the nuclear weapons were unnecessary, and, in fact, might've cost more lives than a ground invasion.
...on the other hand, it isn't America, so why should we care?
I have this incredible urge to open up the discussion of Yugoslavia, again...
They had found plans that detailed the mobilisation of all of japan and arming civilians for combat against the americans and turning japan into one large warzone, i think that the nuclear weapons put a quick end to fighting and DID save a whole lot of lives, not only american but also japanise.
I had read that the Japanese were attempting to surrender right up until when the first bomb was dropped but their offers were being refused or ignored (no point in going to all that trouble of developing the A-bomb and not getting to use it, is there?).
You are aware that the Japanese were making diplomatic moves towards a surrender prior to the dropping of the two atomic bombs ...all they wanted was to save the emperor ....just a detail that seems to get left out of history that completely destroys that "Nukes saved millions of lives" theory in respect to the second world war (this is no secret by the way check out "the world at war" documentaries made in the 70's)
if the Nazis and Japs had of won America already had a plan drawn up for controlling what it called "the non germanic nations" ...... so it would have been a 3 horse race .... ... and yeah you're right about Japan wanting to surrender ....imagine they don't teach that minor detail in American schools ...... and imagine nobody is doing anything about it !!
was gearing up to surrender, why did they attack in the first place? After Pearl Harbor did they all of a sudden change their minds? The Japanese don't surrender very easily, especially not when they attacked first. It's very shameful. If you know about Japanese culture, shame is bad, especially back in forties and fifties Japan.
You don't attack us, then when we are knocking on your doorstep turn around and say "Sorry, we were just kidding, you americans can go home now. It was all just a big joke, a misunderstanding you see. We would just love to get back to business as usual here in Asia. You all can go home now."
We know how they handled busiess as usual in Asia now don't we. It's funny how the haters can turn the other haters into heroes.
Gnaglor, they only geared up for surrender after their attack on America failed so miserably.
RomJeremy, so you had to nuke them, and then let them surrender? Does killing a mass of civilians mean all of a sudden, "ok, now we have our barbaric revenge, you can surrender now"? Neither the Japanese nor the Americans were heroes, both acted brutally, but you kno, if you had let Japan surrender when they first wanted to, then you would have been seen as the heroes. Instead you nuke them and now the rest of the world views you as war-hungry maniacs.
So, I am to understand that if you attack a country, they would be in right to nuke let say, New York and Los Angeles? If I am to follow your thinking. But then again that would be terrorism wouldnt be?
wasn't just about Japan though. While Japan was definately at the forefront of why the bombs were dropped, there was also Russia in the background gearing up for the cold war as well as a nuclear arms race of their own. So not only was the bomb to cower Japan into surrendering (which possibly they were already ready to surrender), but it was also used as a demonstration to mother Russia at the time, telling her to back down or else.
or else we'll kill tens of thousands of your innocent civilians as well? You can't kill that many people as an "example" and justify it. that's the sort of talk hitler would have used. we have morality, usa went against that and you won't admit it.
They sent just about every single male they could into battle, so did Japan. There weren't so many civilians as you think. Plus look at it this way, Russia already knew we had the A bomb, hell, they were working on their own at the time. Russia was a huge enemy of ours at the time. We can either A) drop some a-bombs on Japan, simultaneously ending our war with them and scaring the buhjeebus out of Russia, or B) we could invade mainland Japan (I'm sure that'd go over real well with the locals there) and risk getting a lovely a-bomb from Russia dropped on our heads because they're not afraid to do so. You don't even look at the positive side of dropping the a-bombs either. Look at it this way. They tested these bombs before dropping them on actual people. At the end of these tests, they concluded it was safe to use on the world. We go ahead and drop two and find out hey, these things are really terrible. So terrible no one in the world has used one since. Let's look at an alternative situation. We develop the a-bomb, but we don't drop it, instead we invade mainland Japan and they surrender instantly, no casualties. Best case scenario right there. Except for one thing, no a-bomb has been dropped. No one knows just how devestating it can be or how bad the fallout is. We get into the cold war with Russia, they now have developed their own a-bombs. Now the time has come for one side to use theirs. Who will it be first, the U.S. or Russia? Does it matter? As soon as the first one is in the air, all the rest are getting sent over to each side and we finally get the nuclear war every is waiting for to happen. What do you think arms races are all about? It's about my gun being bigger than your gun. The U.S. showed Russia that it had bigger guns first and Russia said okay, you win. We'll develop our own gun that's fifty times bigger than your biggest gun to keep you at bay, but we've seen what our guns can do and for now, we'll just race you.
They were USA's allies, and the reason the cold war started? THE COLD WAR STARTED BECAUSE USA DROPPED NUKES ON JAPAN, which scared the hell out of russia and hence cold war. So no, dropping a-bombs on japan wasn't a good thing.
"They were USA's allies, and the reason the cold war started? THE COLD WAR STARTED BECAUSE USA DROPPED NUKES ON JAPAN, which scared the hell out of russia and hence cold war. So no, dropping a-bombs on japan wasn't a good thing."
Where do you get your information? Do you honestly think there wouldn't have been a cold war if the US did not drop the atomic bomb? Do you know nothing of the politics following the war? I'm not saying that it wasn't a factor but probably far from the main cause. The main conflict was that The USSR wanted to spread communism and the US wanted to spread Democracy.
Speculation about what MIGHT have happened is NOT justification for killing tens of thousands of civilians "just in case".
"The main conflict was that The USSR wanted to spread communism and the US wanted to spread Democracy." - Communism in Russia came about as a result of democracy! They aren't opposites.
I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about. I'm simply saying that the cold war was not a direct result of the US dropping the a-bomb. I never tried to justify Hiroshima.
And just because Communism and Democracy are not opposites does not mean that was not the driving factor behind the cold war.
We instigated Pearl Harbor and ignored repeat warnings of Japanese fleet movement.
FDR orchastrated it as a pretense to engage -- which he attended to first -- in a European war.
Hitler was avoiding the U.S. entering, they knew they could not match our production capabilties, Hitler also knew of the folly of a naval war from the late Kaiser's losses in the Atlantic... he reluctantly entered as an ally to Japan.
The USSR was saved from Hitler because we intervened. As were Mao's Communist forces in China; FDR's goal, in greater part was to preserve Communism.
He was fabulously successful.
As to Democracy and Communism being one in the same, you are absolutely correct. Populism of that nature directly manifested into politics either exhausts itself as a Democracy economically via kleptocratic legislation, or, if surviving long enough, deteriorates into a varied degree of Communism.
Trotsky and Wilson were men of the same red-stained cloth. FDR 100 times moreso than Wilson, but Wilson was so nonetheless.
A liar, a betrayer of the American people... WWI was a mistake; WWII was necessitated by our involvement in the former... Wilson is an inspiration to every modern-day Neocon we now have.
He too spoke of "new world orders" and such.
Global crusaders "of the people" at home... Democracy or Communism, or some medley of them, they are the same.
And the resulting Imperial push, and push-back inevitably serves to crack the would-be Empire's back.
Iraq I was a mistake, for no other reason than to protect Israel, and for oil. And to protect the Saudi Royals.
Iraq II is a mistake.
One intervention necessitates another.
We trained and armed the groups which were to become Al Queda and the Taliban.
We gave Saddam his weapons.
We extorted oil from under a weak Government in Iran prior to the people being fed up enough to support a "religious" revolution -- and economic one as well; the harbinger of OPEC, that.
Because of us.
One would think I must hate America to bring all this out -- no, it is because I believe one should not run from one's sins and misdoings, but rather embrace and learn from them that I bring this out -- we must stop repeating these same mistakes, and if they are never acknowledged as such, we never will.
Though I must say, i don't agree that USA saved the USSR in WW2, the Germans failed an invasion based on climate and a follius invasion attempt (going over freezing mountains as I recall), they doomed themselves to failure.
On the Western front if not for our entry into the War.
Britain was secondary, he would "come back for it" after he invaded Russia.
Besides, Britain invited it, they threw their lot in with the Poles.
Who the hell needed the poles?
Hitler wanted a clean, easy vitory in the East. The Third Reich, Axis talk was a line dividing Europe.
Everything East of Rome/Berlin including already Axis-held territory was to be theirs.
And most of Africa, and some sections of South America. Japan had her Empire on the other side of the Earth, and they'd "meet in the middle" of the collapsed Soviet Union.
France and Britain may have been targets in the end plan, but he certainly didn't want to face them before Russia, he wanted a one-on-one with the Soviets, and the frogs & co. spoiled it.
And America could have been, as a prior poster noted, and had some plans to be a "third horse in the race" or "third power."
It would have worked out splendidly, actually.
All this business about uniting Europe... already would have been done, and the "Official European" language would have easily been German with no further discussion of the matter.
The Communists would have been destroyed, Mao and Stalin both, killed.
Asia would have been much better organized, in service of the Emperor.
Now I don't like the idea, personally, and I would have been quite happy if World War One wasn't -- which is to say, it remained largely the European war it was.
Good god, over Serbia, no less.
It necessitated World War II. The Central Powers would have never lost or agreed to such terms if not for America's intervention.
We tipped the balance one way; when we left, it struck back the other.
We should have never went in in WWI, we had not sufficient justification.
The Lusitania was a British ship. It carried American weapons and supplies for Britain in contravention of our supposed neutrality.
That was our fault, they sunk that ship with every right to do so.
The history books are written by the Allies, you'll never hear about these things... the firebombing of Dresden... the internment of the Japanese, their land forfiture order by FDR... FDR's repeatedly ignoring warning and indications... he knew; he absolutely knew of Pearl Harbor. He even sent a seperate less severe security dispatch to them than the entire rest of the fleet; they attribute it to "clerical error." Indeed.
World War II was avoidable because World War I was avoidable.
The Cold War was avoidable because WWII was avoidable.
Afganistan and the Mujahadeen... it's like dominoes, and China has yet to fall.
We set them up; we collapse them.
Or they collapse us. I'm not indefinetely hopeful about our prospects, given.
The Spanish-American War was about Imperialism. The Maine most likely went up because an idiot was smoking near the powder room.
Old Imperialism is hard to throw off, in time, sins become more obvious, the rationalizations die before the end-realities do and it becomes apparent what happened.
Suffice it to say the Official Story of the events September 11th do not make a great deal of sense, either, but it is much too unpopular a subject to seriously discuss the possibilities for what happened there.
Suffice it to say, the Reichstag fire, the poles taking over the radio station...
These horrendously corny, frivilous pretexts... we mastered them first.
Hitler's ideas in part came from America's own revolution, Federal Government, etc, he even said so and spoke well of them in Mein Kampf.
Anyway, this neoconservative worldbuilding in Iraq is the latest incarnation of a long trend of unnecessary, territory, resource, or profit-motivated wars. Political motivations as well: Israel.
And the Saudi Royals; a negligent shrub would the man be if he didn't keep them in the lifestyle and safety to which they have become accustomed.
The U.S. has no interests over there.
Wilsionianism is no sufficient justification. "Democracy by proxy" is sick. You keep representative government at home, and if people think it's a good idea they emulate it. Or move to your country. We have no business forcing other countries to preform such tricks.
