American Military Intervention in Iran and/or Syria - To Do or Not To Do, That is the Question [126*-21/11]

AFTER SPENDING ALMOST TWO YEARS beating up on Conservatives, I finally have a chance to support them on two different, but still related initiatives. The first one, which the Senate has been working on for a little while now and has, I am pretty sure, enough bi-partisan support to actually pass; and that is a resolution giving the President the authority to conduct military operations to stop Iran from enriching Uranium to the point where nuclear weapons can be developed. The other is Senator McCain's call for immediate air intervention by the United States and other nations to support the people of Syria.




Do You Agree that the Congressional Resolution Giving President Obama "Authority" to Conduct Military Actions in Iran is a Good Idea?

See results without voting


WHILE IRAN IS NOT the humanitarian catastrophe that Syria is, it presents the more serious, long-term problem which could end up in the lose of even more lives than what is happening in Syria now. The issue is stopping Iran from being able to produce "the bomb" or just "containing" them such as North Korea is, hehe, "contained". The Doves, generally on the left of the political spectrum, prefer containment, or simply believing Iran's claim their activity is only for peaceful purposes, over the Hawks, those to the right of the spectrum, position that the right thing to do is bomb Iran out of existence. The latter option, of course, won't happen, but there is a great danger the former position may win out.

As almost everybody is suggesting, including the Israelis, negotiations, using sanctions and threats as a lever, are the best way to solve this problem. The wild card is if 1) the sanctions are sufficiently harsh to make Iran finally bend to the world's (well, except for Russia and China) will, and 2) Iran will believe our threats that we will really take military action, if necessary.

It is this latter point that the current effort on the Hill is aimed. What the Conservatives want to do, and it looks like many Democrats will go along, is to give President Obama the "authority" to intervene military in Iran if he finds it is ultimately required. They are not "requiring" the President to take action, just giving him pre-approved authority. They believe, and I absolutely agree, that this will put the necessary teeth behind our threats for Iran is very aware how our political process works, or doesn't work if you are talking about the last couple of years. This kind of non-binding resolution lets Iran know where America, not just the Conservatives, stand in our determination to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities.




Do You Think Senator McCain's Idea to Create a "Safe Haven" for Syrian Opposition Forces is a Good Idea?

See results without voting


SENATOR MCCAIN'S IDEA is equally simple, provide the Syrian opposition a "safe haven" from which to organize and run operations in order to defeat Asad. He proposed to do this by using an international coalition, can you say NATO, along with the Arab League, by providing the same kind of air cover used in Libya; no ground forces, just planes, drones, and various kinds of GPS/laser-guided remote munitions.

These forces would effective eliminate tanks and artillery that could reach the safe-haven, and keep this zone free of enemy forces; a very plausible plan, which, to me, is a no-brainer and not particularly risky. McCain criticizes Obama for not trying to put together a coalition, but, I don't know that he is not trying; I certainly wouldn't be issuing any progress reports if something likes this is actually in the works, Secret and Top Secret would seem to be the watch-words when going to war.

The biggest problem with this idea is, what Syrian faction to you coordinate it with? In Libya, the opposition coelesed relatively quickly around one group; this doesn't seem to be the case in Syria. While we could create a "safe haven" working with several factions, for we need "eyes on the ground' to be successful after all, it would be highly complicated and prone to mistakes, especially if one opposition faction is trying to damage another faction, as often happened in Afghanistan.

I think before President Obama can do much, vis-a-vis the McCain plan, the Syrian opposition need to get their collective act together.

More by this Author

Comments 36 comments

NayNay2124 profile image

NayNay2124 4 years ago

We need to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb. Syria is a very complex situation because many Americans are tired of America involving themselves in other countries internal problems.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I appreciate you stopping by and commenting, NayNay.

HSchneider 4 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

I agree with your two points, My Esoteric. Giving the President Congressional approval to take military action against Iran is a good idea. It should give Iran pause in their actions though I have a lot of doubts that it will. Also, the President has shown that he will use all of his non-violent steps before he goes to the military response. I also agree that air support for the Syrian rebels is a good idea but only if we get support from the Arab League. Otherwise we could become a target again for extremists. Excellent analysis, My Esoteric.

Rock_nj profile image

Rock_nj 4 years ago from New Jersey

I am generally a pacifist, and believe the U.S. is way too involved in the world militarily and the price of maintaining a military empire is too high for the U.S. bear in the long run (deficits). With that said, if Israel is going to attack Iran (which it appears they will, they have attacked other surrounding countries in past years over nuclear programs), then the U.S. might as well help them get the job done right. We are going to get blammed for the attack either way and suffer the consequences, so we might as well ensure that it is a mission accomplished and Iran's nuclear program suffers a major setback.

The sooner the Iran war ends the better, which the U.S. can help ensure. Because any sustained increase in world oil prices will destroy the world economy. The European Debt situation will spiral out of control if oil surges in price for a long period of time. We should develop alternative energy sources, so we don't have to worry about the implications of the price of oil on our economy and the world economy.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I appreciate your comments, HS and Rock_NJ, it is definitely a conundrum, each crisis presenting its own unique set of problems.

I added a few more thoughts to the Syrian section, btw.

Freeway Flyer profile image

Freeway Flyer 4 years ago

It would be nice if all of the governments in the world that we dislike could be removed. But as the Iraq / Afghanistan adventures have demonstrated, removing a government and replacing it with something better is a tricky business.

The basic problem with an Iran operation is that there are a lot of doubts about whether it will actually accomplish very much. If Israel and/or the United States carry out some sort of an aerial attack, it may only slow down temporarily its nuclear program. If a more ambitious operation to bring down the regime occurs, it will likely be a big fat mess that the U.S. currently cannot afford. Because Iran recognizes the weaknesses of either alternative, a threat of military force may not carry a lot of teeth. So in the end, economic sanctions may be the only viable hope.

I agree with your assessment of the Syria situation. A no-fly zone won't accomplish much without a clearly defined opposition movement to support, and the chances of getting an international coalition to back this seem slim. If nothing else, Russia and China will block any kind of UN resolution, and we don't seem to have the same call for action from many Muslim nations that we had in Libya.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for the comment Freeway. No doubt about the truth of what you say, especially with Iran. I listened to Benjamin Netanyahu this morning on radio; what an effective speaker. He was making the case to a bunch of American students at some function last week about why something has to be done to prevent Iran from getting the atomic bomb.

He drew a very graphic picture of what a nuclear armed Iran is capable of either directly or through its terrorist networks such as Hamas and Hezbulla. With fissle nuclear material, Netanyahu pointed out that Iran is easily capable of delivering this material anywhere in the world by air, train, ship, or vehicle. Because of this, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will likely arm themselves.

What he was making a case for was the idea that a "containment" policy just didn't make sense. I expand that point by noting that we are suffering the consquences in Iran today partly because we "contained" North Korea 50 years ago; they were one of the pricipal suppliers of nuclear knowledge and technology to Iran.

I don't think there is any serious planning going on now in the Pentagon to pull another Iraq, in Iran; just for the reasons you mention. However, I am sure they are pulling their hair out trying to figure out a way to set back their program for a few decades.

We may end up in a hot war with them over this, but I don't think it will be one of conquest. If we do put troops on the ground, I bet it will be at strategic locations along the coast of the straights in order to prevent them from closing it, and then bombing the crap out of them.

Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

ME, I am not prepared to go to war over whether or not Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, we said the same thing about N. Korea. I question this from a moral perspective, who are we to say who becomes a nuclear power and who does not? Getting involved in Syria is just more nation building and meddling in the affairs of others. Giving the president the authority is one thing, but does anyone believe that we are willing to commit troops to containing Iran?

I remain firmly on the left of this issue and am up to here in regards to military interventionism. My view on this topic is quite clear in the article below:

Thanks Cred2

phdast7 profile image

phdast7 4 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

You laid out the two situations and the choices and possibilities which could be pursued by our government. Very informative and very helpful. Thank you. SHARING

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You are welcome PHDAST, thanks for stopping by.

Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

Greetings Mr. Esoteric,

the last person who commented on this article best shows how hypocritical some Americans are.

On one hand, `we need to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb` but on the other hand, we are `tired of America` getting involved in other countries `internal problems`. I would say that Iran`s nuclear program is its internal problem ...

I honestly don`t care what Iran does but I find it so ugly that Israel is the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons and nobody is sending inspectors there ... nobody even talks about Israel`s nuclear program.

If America is going to bomb Iran`s facilities I would like Israel`s facilities bombed too ... go for North Korea`s after, Russia`s ... let`s just bomb everyone ... geez ...

Some Americans are so trigger happy ...

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you for stopping by, Mr. Happy. I am to take it then, that you do not consider Iran an exporter of terror who has designs to eliminate the nation of Israel; a past and present imminent danger to world peace? You don't believe they back the Hezzbolah and Hammas terror organizations, both of whom who have attacked and murdered American; nor did they try black ops on American soil, but that was just a CIA fabrication to make the Iranians look bad and stir up American fervor against them?

I am guessing also, that you see Israel and Iran on equal footing as a threat to the world (none) and that their histories show them to both be peace loving nations with no designs whatsoever to dominate through force and coersion their region.

Are my guesses correct?

For me, I truly believe Iran, with a bomb, is a direct threat to America's national security interestes, while Israel with a bomb is not. I truly believe, and history shows, that Israel's bomb is defensive in nature and Iran's will be, by all of their rhetoric, offensive.

Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

Okay Mr. Esoteric, let's go on and follow your argument for the sake of the discussion. You believe Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat to You? Even if this is true, why do You think that Iranians would like to hurt Americans? Since You like history, can You show me examples/facts of Iran being a waring nation ... as compared to the U.S. maybe? LOL

Sorry, I am in a rush now but I will return to comment on your wrong assumptions/guesses about what I believe.

All the best! : )

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Well, yes and no. I can a smart-ass, of course, and start with the Persian Empire back around 500 BCE, but I will try to stay a bit more current. In the last few decades, no, Iran has not directly attacked its neighbors, Iran, the Soviet Union/Russia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

It has, however, attacked America, beginning with the invasion of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, which, world-wide, was recognized as U.S. territory, just as their embassy grounds in Washington D.C. was recognized as Iranian territory. Then it bombed the U.S. barracks in Lebanon, via one of their terrorist arms, the Hezzbolah and again attacked U.S. troops in Iraq with munitions and some clandistine troops supporting al Queda and the radical Shi'as. They attacked and occupied Lebannon through their surrogate in Syria and have been attacking Israel via their Hammas connections. Finally, they attacked Saudia Arabia on American soil recently by trying to assassinate their ambassador in this country.

Now, in order not to be too much of a hypocrite, I have major issues with America's aggression toward the Native American's, Blacks, Mexico (twice), and Iraq, to name a few.

pramodgokhale profile image

pramodgokhale 4 years ago from Pune( India)

I totally disagree such military intervention.America's Arms industry needs business and wealth of Iran and Syria

will be looted by the west beyond that there is nothing of

democracy human rights it is all political rhetoric.

After world war two America helped and funded military dictators across the globe especially the third world.

India is a victim of divide and rule policy of British imperialist and wound of partition, we are still suffering

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you for stopping by, reading, and adding your thoughts, @pramodgokhale.

SoSyrious profile image

SoSyrious 4 years ago from Houston, Texas

I encourage you to look beyond what the media is telling you, and our government. Bashar Al Assad of Syria is *NOT* slaying the citizens of Syria. Insurgents sent by the US, Turkey, France, Lebanon, etc are the ones staging this so-called uprising.

What started out as a minor conflict with regards to if Syria should remain secular, or declare a national religion; has since been exploited to the detriment of Syria.

It is a guise. The oppositional forces (also known as the FREE Syrian Army - which is NOT Syrias army) murder and torture people, then film and photograph it and blame it on Bashar.

All in an effort to rally public support for humanitarian aid -- which we ALL should know from Iran, what humanitarian aid means. It means we go into a country as a friend, then are ordered into combat. So as to circumvent the need for congressional approval.

If you would like to see the truth of Syria, please go to youtube, or anywhere else with video, and search Global March for Syria. You will see millions of Syrians rallied IN SUPPORT OF BASHAR. If Bashar were doing anything wrong, I assure you, the citizens would not tolerate it and have him removed, themselves, immediately.

Lastly, worrying about Iran building a nuke is laughable. Look at Israel. They have plenty of them and wont even sign the agreement or allow inspections. Give me a break! Iran is simply seeking nuclear power - not mass destruction. In Irans history - never have they declared war on anyone.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@SoSerious, thank you for stopping by, reading, beand sharing your thoughts. Of course, I think you are not correct, and am not sure what experiences have brought you to such a radical viewpoint. Having said that, it is important that those who do have a contrary opinion, express it because it may shed light on a nuance others may not have thought of.

Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

Now, in order not to be too much of a hypocrite, I have major issues with America's aggression toward the Native American's, Blacks, Mexico (twice), and Iraq, to name a few. - LOL Thank You very much for at least saying this, just because when I started reading about the Persian Empire and the American hostages in the 70s I felt like I was on a tour of history on our planet ...

You certainly are not still holding a grudge for that incident in the 70s, are You Mr. Esoteric? That would be like a forty plus year-grudge ... lol

Okay, let's get a little more serious ... I have a feeling I woun't be able to keep serious though because the topic of invading/bombing Iran is too much of a neo-con joke. I know You to be an intelligent and smart man Mr. Esoteric so, I know even if You will not agree with me in what I will say, at least You will understand another opinion/perspective. "The truth is rarely pure and never simple" - Oscar Wilde. As You well said in your last comment: "it may shed light on a nuance others may not have thought of".

Let me talk a little about Iran ... I know a few things as I have many Persian friends who go back often. I just spoke to one last week-end, who returned from Tehran last summer. I asked him if people care about the U.S. threats there - he laughed and said "no, everyone's used to it". I laughed too ... useless threats of wars and propaganda on both sides, that's all I could think at the time of his comment. That's all I'm thinking now too ...

I honestly believe the government of the United States of America is more endangering to world peace than any other government in the world, at the moment (maybe Russia or China come close ...). The United States has been bullying the world for a little too long now, all under the pretense of spreading democracy/Manifest Destiny. That's a bunch of garbage that really get Mr. Happy excited ...

Do You ask yourself why Iranians went-up in arms against the States in the 70's? Do You know how the American puppet, the Shah of Iran was treating people before the Islamic Revolution? The pendulum swings both sides, Mr. Esoteric, all the negativity that the United States Empire has spread, is coming back - it's karma, really. In my opinion, the Iranian people had a right to tell "America" (more like the U.S. gov't) to go #@%& *!(@#& after it began meddling in it's internal affairs.

The U.S. gov't has done that all over the owlrd though, installing dictators ... giving weapons to Sadam one minute, hunting him the next ... helping Noriega, screwing him right after ... A game of deception and dirty tricks ... what for, money? Because the Neo-cons want a bigger market, they want more countries to exploit and drive into debt? They want to suck-dry the natural resources of other countries and not care about any regulations, effect on environment, etc ... Yes, that is why the U.S. government has been more or less always at war for the past two hundred years, since it's creation: to subdue others in order for it to get what it wants from that land.

No, I do not like Ahmadinajad or Khomeini and his Revolutionary Guard. Ahmadinajad the Monky, as my Persian friens call him is just a puppet, much like Obama. His useless rants about Israel or about how there "are no gay people in Iran", are just that: useless rants, there for the show. He has no back-bone, nothing ... and nothing comes of nothing.

Yes, I agree with You that Iran funds Hezbollah, not so much Gaza although they do help Palestinians as well. I mean somebody has to help the Palestinians too, right? Or no ... Palestinians should just crawl under a rock and die? I don;t like Hezbolah much either, nor do I think Hamas is pursuing a good course of action but let me tell You thins: their existence is critical because someone needs to keep a check on the bully in the region, the only one with nuclear weapons that is ...

Great, we're somehow back to nuclear weapons. To begin with, I abhor war and bloodshed because I think they solve nothing: "there are no winners in wars, only survivors".

Having nuclear weapons nowadays basically insures one from an attack from others. Look at North Korea ... they've been doing that for decades. They have a bomb and not even the might Empire wants to act too bravely now ... keeps the neo-cons in check - in a very ugly and twisted way, nuclear weapons are what keeps countries safe from bullies.

I don't believe for one second that Iran would sell a nuclear bomb to any terrorist organization. This is not playing battleships, there are indeed limits to what people will do. Iran does not even need a nuclear weapon because it already has the backing of China and Russia for the most part. And China pays for the U.S. gov't gas bill so ... I guess we should just all thank China for peace in the world at the moment.

Interesting how Brazil, India, Russia, Indoneasia and China just formed their own group, signalling to the IMF that their days are numbered ...

It's a tough time now, I understand. The collapse of empires is never an easy thing. There is always a bit of chaos, irregularities, high emotions and so on. I think what is important to understand is that wars and bombing people will never, ever help You. It will only create more discontent and turn more people against You.

The pre-emptive attacks are very upsetting. Just because I see the government of the United States as the most dangerous to world peace, does that give me a right to attack the United States and murder its people? Think about that for second Mr. Esoteric beacuse I really d o think that the United States government is great threat to world peace (and it has been for ... too long).

Say "no" to war unless You want war and You are ready to die. That's my opinion.

Thank You for your time. All the best!

Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

"Of course, I think you are not correct, and am not sure what experiences have brought you to such a radical viewpoint." - This is a very interesting comment Mr. Esoteric. I of course do not find the comment that SoSyrious left that extreme. It's the truth, well the part about nuclear weapons in the Middle East anyway.

Do You really feel it is fair not to ask Israel to allow inspectors in their country to check their nuclear facilities? Just because You like Israeli nuclear bombs? ... I am just so not fond of double-standards - that is really what bothers me most. Like saying: "I got this but You are not allowed to have it."

Childish, nonsensical, dumb ... unrealistic ... I can keep going.

SoSyrious profile image

SoSyrious 4 years ago from Houston, Texas

Correction: I meant "which we ALL should know from IRAQ". My experience, fact, and opinion is derived from serving in the United States Army. Yet, unlike others, actually speaking with and learning from the people I was supposed to be against. I've since continued as such. Comparing what my own government tells me, with the people whom they are speaking against. Social networks offer a boundless supply of information. I'm particularly interested in the middle east and golden crescent area - as it is the most complex topic I've ever found in my life. Which I happen to enjoy! I MUST mention...I'm quite pleased we were able to beat SOPA and PIPA in censoring the internet under the guise of "copyright infringement" (lol) otherwise I'd have no choice but to believe and submit to my wayward governments biased view and corrupt agenda. Lets keep an eye on those, plus ACTA. I wish the powers that be, could simply address any one single issue head-on - without using a guise, mask, or false-flag operation. It's quite insulting. Now, on with the campaign for truth.....Inshallah :>...Thanks for reading!.:)

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

SoSerious, we have the same background, retired Army and retired DoD civil servant. I am guessing you served in Iraq and/or Afghansistan, my war was Vietnam, and almost the first Iraq war (ended up being activated but spent my time behind a desk in the Pentagon.)

Studing the Middle East is essential, for that is where virtually every empire in history as been, in part, brought down; from the Persian and Roman Empires of old to Britania of more modern day. If we ignore the lessons of history, which every great nation has done before us has done, the Middle East will more than likely be the catalyst of its downfall.

I am with you on SOPA but have to look up PIPA and ACTA.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for the hub, Mr. Happy, lol. It was actually very good and I do recommend, if you haven't already, copy and paste it into a stand alone hub; it is worth more people reading than those that will see it here.

For the most part, I can argue with about some facts and a few assertions you present, but those, by and large, are on the fringe. In the main, you speak the truth about America.

But, let me say these few things. It wasn't SoSerious' view on Iranian nukes that brought on my comment of "radical" it was the whole of her comment; the rest that went along with it ... it is radical in the sense that it is shared by few Americans and is sitting on the fringe of the current beleif set in this country.

On Iran's ignoring our threats - I have no doubt they think that way after having watched Bush's bluster and theatrics for eight years. It will take awhile and several examples that America means what it says before they, or anybody else will take us seriously. While Bush made a rather severe and emphatic statement with is misguided invasion of Iraq, it got people's attention for awhile; then he threw it away with stupid and arrogant diplomacy. Obama took the first step in restoring America's word by sending our carriers back into the straights of Hormuz after Iran told us to keep them out.

All-in-all, I have to disagree with you about America being a true threat to world peace, although we have had our episodes, the latest being, of course, the invasion of Iraq. Rarely, but unfortunately not never (how is that for a double negative), has the U.S. been the actual agressor outside our own borders. By my count, that would be 4; 1898 Spanish-American war; 1961-Bay of Pigs invasion; 1983-Grenada; and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The reasons for America's involvement were concocted and many other remedies were available. The other 10 conflicts were not really of our making.

Has American acted like arrogant a-holes on occasion, you betcha'. Has America been magnanomous, just as often. Does America act in its own self-interests, of course it does, that is what sovereign nations do. It is my impression, though, that in balance, America has done more for world peace than make it worse, including its short-sighted support of dictators (remember, one of those dictators, at America's insistance, signed a long-term peeace agreement with Israel).

SoSyrious profile image

SoSyrious 4 years ago from Houston, Texas

My Esoteric: *head in my hands* Iraq? The latest? :( Since Vietnam, theres been quite a shift in protocol. In saying that, I mean: We no longer declare war. We circumvent Congress by staging an all-out revolution in other countries (the Al Qaeda, "FREE Syrian Army", Turkish, French, Lebonese insurgents) so that we (US and NATO) can PRETEND that we're going in to deliver "humanitarian aid". THAT is the new phrase for "WAR". 1) Its cheaper, 2) we appear to be Saints 3) Americans still cheer the government right along. Iraq is NOT the latest by far. Off the top of my head and without even thinking: Bahrain, Libya, and (now) Syria. Syria and Iran and quite possibly the last two remaining countries that are not US-puppets. What you THINK you see occuring in Syria under Bashar Al Assad *IS NOT TRUE*. It is staged. I have plenty of proof and material explaining this. Above and beyond anything I EVER show you (given the opportunity), simply google or search "Global March for Syria". MILLIONS of Syrians supporting Bashar. Reverse the roles. If Obama was doing what Bashar is 'supposedly doing' -- do you think we'd be shoulder to shoulder in the streets carrying supportive signs, banners, the longest flag Ive ever seen (half a mile long or so?) the crowd was so huge they had to use a chopper to get the entire crowd in the photos. C'mon...this too is "self evident". (Also, YES, I KNOW you didnt see it on mainstream media. You wont. You wont see any truth that amounts to anything there.)....;/ (PS. I thought if anything had been typed before, or cut and pasted - it couldnt be published? Please advise! lol Im so new here...but I tried to cut and paste Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution with regards to Obamacare - and hubpages absolutely refused. Is hubpages as allergic to the U.S. Constitution as our own government is? :) )

Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

Hello again Mr. Esoteric,

I am happy for the conversation and for your time. Thank You.

I think my main point was that wars do not help. Thus, the U.S. government can put all its nuclear carriers, send all its members of the military over to Iran and still, nothing will be solved. Kind of like Afghanistan LOL. You cannot make people like You with bombs ... with bombs You can only bring destruction, not peace. A smart man who used to be here on Hub-pages a few years ago with the avatar name of Coldwarbaby had a great quote which I will always remember: "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."

WWII ended with nuclear bombs but did it bring peace to our world? No. For better or worse, I was born under the Iron Curtain and lived a childhood going to bed hungry and close to freezing in winter nights ... I know a little about wars; I know about tanks rolling down the streets and tracers flying through the sky at night ... The "ra-ta-ta-ta-ta" from Ak-47s is also common ... all because of the American-Soviet arms-race ... I can't begin to tell You how happy I am about that ...

"On Iran's ignoring our threats - I have no doubt they think that way after having watched Bush's bluster and theatrics for eight years" - Not exactly. My friend's answer about Persians not caring about America's threats comes from a different reason.

When You have endured a lot; when You have lived through Hell (so to speak), mindless threats are nothing. People who have been through real hardships, who have seen Death and who are defending their homes from invadors, do not care about threats. It's nothing ...

I'm tired now, long day but try to see that You only dig a deeper hole by continuing with hostilities.

What about the Barbary Wars, Vietnam, invasion of Panama ... almost forgot the American-Philippine War ... to a certain extent though, I understand that The United States economy would really crumble to pieces if all of a sudden the Military Industrial Complex which President Eisenhower warned us all about, would be dismantled. Thus, one day at a time ... for now. For a better world!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I too appreciate the civil and thoughtful conversation we are having and hope others are learning a lot from both points of view.

Minor points - I didn't forget about those wars you mentioned: the Barbary Wars (which wasn't a war but one military incursion that did the trick) was in response to continued pirateering and kidnapping of American merchants sailing in the Mediterrainian. The ignition point was the kidnapping of a bunch of Americans and Thomas Jefferson wasn't going to pay the ransom they wanted. Vietnam will always be debated, but techically, and I believe practically, that was not a war of aggression on America's part, it certainly wasn't one of expansionism, we weren't interested in that part of the world then. I covered the American-Phillipine War, that was part of the Spanish-American wars, one of America's wars of "imperialism", mainly pushed by our business community.

To carry our conversation forward, I want to pick on Vietnam because it supports your point of view and, I think mine. I didn't know this until later, but President Eisenhower is the one who gave away the opportunity not to have a conflict 10 years later. When Ho Chi Mihn bested the French (supported by the US), he was not an avowed Communist, he was a left-leaning Nationalist with an emphasis on Nationalism. He would, however, go to the camp that would support his efforts. There was no particularly good reason why Eisenhower had to take on Ho as an enemy, once he had secured his victory over the French; we had the opportunity to try to bring him into our side with olive branches. But remember, back then, America was controlled by the Religious Right, Red Menace-J. Edgar-McCartheism, much as it is today. In addition, you had a Republican, albeit a moderate one, as President. Consequently, reconciliation, which I firmly believe was a possibility, was not in the cards.

Scroll forward 10 years, North Vietnam has recovered and is now agressing against South Vietnam, both mutually agreed to nations resulting from the North's defeat of the French. South Vietnam asked for our help in beating back the attack from the North and it was in our National Interest to give it because Ho was now part of the expansionist Communist camp. The domino theory was real and the vestiges of our failure in Vietnam were felt well into the 1980s in places like the Phillipines and Indonesia; not to mention Laos and Cambodia. Our involvement was an unfortunate evil necessity, from my point of view; the consequences of not acting would have most likely been very much against American and even Canadian interests.

Our difference, I feel, lies in my favorite series - Principle and Pragmatism. I don't like war, I have been in it, I have been shot at, fortunately not up close and personal, I have been the target of rockets; but, I know that war and conflicts are part of human nature and will happen. History is working against you, my friend. There have always been and always will be little Hitlers who want to become big Hitlers; sometimes they succeed. They will challange, militarily if need be, whoever the big kid on the block is for domination; in recent times, the Soviet Union and China have succeeded, but in the Soviets case, they ultimately failed. Today, Iran, as a rogue nation, is trying to establish its dominance in the Middle East. (You mentioned the truism about our support of the despot Iranian king and the people's right to revolt against it. I doubt they are very happy that they allowed an even worse despot to take his place, one more deeply rooted because it is based in religion.)

If Iran were like Canada, I don't think anybody would have much objection to their rise to economic power in the Middle East. They wouldn't be trying to build the bomb because they wouldn't need it, but they would be trying to "openly" develop peaceful nuclear capability. Iran, however, is not like Canada, it is like North Korea before it invaded the South or the old Soviet Union and that is the difference.

Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

"History is working against you, my friend. There have always been and always will be little Hitlers who want to become big Hitlers" - I am glad You can tell the future ... what was will not always be.

The world would still be flat if people didn't challange the status quo. I aim for real, significant change and that starts with each one of us.

If people continue to lie to themselves and tell each other that we shouldn't trust each other, that the guy next door wishes us harm, that we need to build big walls and fences to feel safe ... if that is the life people wish to live ... sure. I think deep-down inside, your Spirit wishes something different. Dream the change and I ask the Universe to allow your good wishes to manifest.

May Wakan Tanka walk with You. Thank You for your time, I appreciate it.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

And I appreciate yours as well, Mr. Happy. We are whittling the differences down, because your objective is my objective, what you say is clearly how people "ought" to live. If fact, left to their own devices, that is how I believe most people actually do live. Unfortunately, the operative word is "most".

There are "some" people who don't and pray on those that do, it is human nature and has been for a few million years. It is what to do about the "some", when they act, that has us conversing, I think.

phdast7 profile image

phdast7 4 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Dear My Esoteric and Mr. Happy -

I cannot fully express to you how very much I appreciate the thoughtful and civil and generous way in which you have discussed this issue. You have both made excellent points and clarified issues and have been exemplary discussants. There are those on HP who could learn a great deal from both of you. It has been a privilege to follow your conversation. Thank you. SHARING

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

It is definitely much more pleasant this way for sure, but it is sometimes fun to sharpen ones rapier on some Conservative site.

S Leretseh profile image

S Leretseh 4 years ago

Mr. Esoteric, what do you think of 'Loose Change'?

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for stopping by, S Leretseh, but I am sorry, I don't know what "Loose Change" means.

S Leretseh profile image

S Leretseh 4 years ago

It changed my view. I no longer believe the gov't version. IMO, Bush had two objectives:: re-invade Iraq (kill the 3 Husseins) & Iran. Israel (i.e. Mossad) went along since these two countries posed the most threat to Israel's security. If you have Netflix , it's available on streaming video. You can also google '911 and Mossad', lots of articles and Youtude videos.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for the link, S Leretseh. I remember it now, but dismissed it as pure bunk. I stopped reading the article you after getting part concerning the Pentagon (I have two hubs regarding my experience with that event) because I know it to totally false, for I had a friend that was travelling from Dulles on the flight that ended up in the Pentagon. He never made it to his destination because he was very dead somewhere inside the Pentagon along with the rest of his fellow passengers.

bilboburgler profile image

bilboburgler 4 years ago from Europe

Great article. The failure in Iraq and Aphganistan is there was no plan, no objective. While it feels fun pulling the trigger it is more important to work out what you want the bullet to do.

Syria needs a plan. This Senator does not have a plan. Much as I hate the Syrian position we need leaders with plans. Right now "no plans" so "no leaders".

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Great comment, Bilboburgler, thanks for making it.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article