US "War" with Iran

[DukeRustfield]

This is what i said: .."no democracy will ever be able" to bomb its will through and upon others "

and the keywords are " able", " will", "through and upon others", meaning:
They will not achieve what they want, by force.

No, I'm back to disagreeing with you. WWII showed that a democracy can force its will on others by boming. Kosovo, etc. Bombing is just one form of military action and military actions, threats of military actions, etc have throughout time been able to force countries to do all kinds of things. It's how my country came to exist. And how your country came to exist, and most countries on the planet for that matter. In fact, I'd go so far as to say nothing has been more influential in the history of Mankind than force of arms.

You don't have to like it and we can reject it as modern thinkers, but it's still the truth.

The US admin will try to create trouble for the Iranian regime but the chances of an actual overt attack is practically null.

The US will not attack Iran.

I don't buy that. First, Bush isn't one who has ever cared a whole lot about public opinion. I can't see how the last 2 years he would miraculously see that he is governing a democracy. I believe he still feels history will somehow prove him right.

The US people have great concern for its soldiers over there. And they are making the case that Iran is directly involved in killing those soldiers. Starting a new war won't be something the people abide by, but like I said, there's a lot they can do that doesn't involve marching into Iran.

[taifoon]

Originally Posted by DukeRustfield

No, I'm back to disagreeing with you. WWII showed that a democracy can force its will on others by boming. Kosovo, etc. Bombing is just one form of military action and military actions, threats of military actions, etc have throughout time been able to force countries to do all kinds of things. It's how my country came to exist. And how your country came to exist, and most countries on the planet for that matter. In fact, I'd go so far as to say nothing has been more influential in the history of Mankind than force of arms.

You don't have to like it and we can reject it as modern thinkers, but it's still the truth.

How about Vietnam then? What made USA Might quit and fail in that enterprise?

Yes, it seems we both are back to where we started. Let's try another approach for the sake of avoiding going in circles. Firslty, what are we arguing about? You, on one hand, indirectly refer to two key concepts, History and Might where you righteoulsy state that so has been the case throughout history: Might was allways Right, and had the final say on countries and entities being.

Me on the other hand, will gladly aknowledge that fact but only and up to a certain point in time where i no longer consider this to be valid and where exceptions has already proved the validity of the new rule: Might is no more able to be allways Right. This i base on the following:

When the romans, persians and mongols roamed and wreaked havoc half the earth, their gods had blessed them with a virtue many of our current leaders envy them for: Their 24+ H non-connectivity and their ability to allways stay off-line and away from the monitoring eyes of CNN, BBC or Channel 5. Maybe the nazis can also thank their timings of wars, taking place some decade or so before TV was invented. Hence and up to that point, the old rule of "Might is Right" was still valid and Might seemed to enjoy ravaging freely and undisturbed, until it got stopped by another mightier Might, for example one with Nuclear power.

Since those days, two decisive changes has almost affected that for so long valid rule: Media and the Nuclear bomb.

Under the spotlights of media, USA was therefore obliged to "run and quit" Vietnam, since being a democracy, majority of people were 'influenced' by the media to not (vote nor agree) on that war. Iraq is another fresh one. Hence my presented exception.

Reguarding the nuclear bomb, although Alexander the Great and other conquerers could rely on the overwhelming swords, men and fighting technics to subdue other kingdoms, the same can not be totally true in this our present world: No super power can or should feel safier than other less powerfull country when one or more tiny dirty (or clean) nuclear bomb (or chemical, bacterial..) could achieve the same harm to the giant as the giant could do the dwarf.

In this respect, the notion of "Might is allways Right" is not valid anymore.

What we could all learn is instead the need for a new world doctrine, one which adopts a more global and human-focused approach from super powers to other national states and countries and which above all, truely work for a genuin and sincere implementation of human and free-rights across the globe. Quit arrogance and start dealing with everyone as partners in humanity and things will get inevitably better.

* Sorry if i ended up sounding like another preeching priest.

[DukeRustfield]

How about Vietnam then? What made USA Might quit and fail in that enterprise?

In every fight someone has to lose (well, or tie). North Vietnam used force to gain what it wanted, a communist country in all of Vietnam.

You, on one hand, indirectly refer to two key concepts, History and Might where you righteoulsy state that so has been the case throughout history: Might was allways Right, and had the final say on countries and entities being.

I never said any such thing. You said a Democracy cannot force it's will upon others through bombing. I disagreed and said: ANY type of government can and will and always has used military to influence. I didn't say it was right. It merely is.

I didn't read the rest of your post because I never said might makes right. I said might is used. Period. That's it.

[taifoon]

Originally Posted by DukeRustfield

In every fight someone has to lose (well, or tie). North Vietnam used force to gain what it wanted, a communist country in all of Vietnam.


I never said any such thing. You said a Democracy cannot force it's will upon others through bombing. I disagreed and said: ANY type of government can and will and always has used military to influence. I didn't say it was right. It merely is.

I didn't read the rest of your post because I never said might makes right. I said might is used. Period. That's it.

I am sure you have read few proverbs.
"Actions speak louder than words" doesn't mean that actions use soundwaves to move from point A to reach point B.
"A man's home is his castle" doesn't litteraly transform ones home to Windsor palace.

Similarly "Might is Right" in my context is meant to describe the act by which someone who possesses the power to do something, is also bound to easily justify the use of it, which consequently and naturally also leads him to use it.

I am sorry if i assumed you'd understand it this way and not the squared way.
My mistake.