And I also totally agree with JamesGrimes about putting too much emphasis on what others think. The others need to be 'qualified' to determine whether what they think matters or not.

The 'qualified' part is also totally dependent on the person. If you respect and appreciate your parent - obviously what they think of you would be of major importance to you. If you don't - it's likely you couldn't care less.

As for the US-related situation - everyone tends to base their opinions based on their interests and preferences, typically ignoring such of the entity being judged. So, do I care what someone in a remote country thinks, considering the fact that they have no idea about all the detai...

And I also totally agree with JamesGrimes about putting too much emphasis on what others think. The others need to be 'qualified' to determine whether what they think matters or not.

The 'qualified' part is also totally dependent on the person. If you respect and appreciate your parent - obviously what they think of you would be of major importance to you. If you don't - it's likely you couldn't care less.

As for the US-related situation - everyone tends to base their opinions based on their interests and preferences, typically ignoring such of the entity being judged. So, do I care what someone in a remote country thinks, considering the fact that they have no idea about all the details - of course I don't.

It's an issue of credibility and Huffington Post reporting this has a long way to go to gain such if you put it in the fair, honest & decent department. Therefore a) it's not surprising what was stated; b) who cares (well, you may, but I certainly don't).

North Korea pursued nukes because it thought the USA likely to invade. Iran has pursued nukes because it thought Israel and the USA were likely to invade. South American nations even now are banding together to do business with each other (which could cost us a great deal in increased oil prices), rather than the USA, because of the USA's habit of taking down governments in Central and South America it doesn't like. Al Qaeda bombed the WTC because it saw America as an invader of Muslim territory. The "coalition of the willing" has dwindled to almost nothing because the populations of those nations have been outraged by American mismanagement of the war and the corrupt brutality of Guantan...

North Korea pursued nukes because it thought the USA likely to invade. Iran has pursued nukes because it thought Israel and the USA were likely to invade. South American nations even now are banding together to do business with each other (which could cost us a great deal in increased oil prices), rather than the USA, because of the USA's habit of taking down governments in Central and South America it doesn't like. Al Qaeda bombed the WTC because it saw America as an invader of Muslim territory. The "coalition of the willing" has dwindled to almost nothing because the populations of those nations have been outraged by American mismanagement of the war and the corrupt brutality of Guantanamo Bay, and our soldiers suffer and die mostly without international help. Many other nations will no longer extradite wanted suspects to the USA because they view us as barbaric.

I certainly agree that we cannot be controlled by what other nations think. But ignorance or carelessness about it gets Americans killed and costs Americans millions. If we care about America, we'd better care about how America is perceived.

masbury, either North Koreans are really dumb or I think your assessment of them is erroneous. If USA was invade - it would've done so a long time ago. Same with Israel & Iran... but then again, if ah-I-ll-make-a-bomb can appear to believe that the Holocaust didn't happen - it's impossible to use any kind of logic with him.

I would agree with you that America needs to do what it can to avoid mistakes, protect its citizens, whether in uniform or not. But America should do what is best for America.

As for the coalitions - it's a moving target. One bomb explodes in any of those countries and they quickly run under America's wing.. you know how that part works. Things change depending on ...

masbury, either North Koreans are really dumb or I think your assessment of them is erroneous. If USA was invade - it would've done so a long time ago. Same with Israel & Iran... but then again, if ah-I-ll-make-a-bomb can appear to believe that the Holocaust didn't happen - it's impossible to use any kind of logic with him.

I would agree with you that America needs to do what it can to avoid mistakes, protect its citizens, whether in uniform or not. But America should do what is best for America.

As for the coalitions - it's a moving target. One bomb explodes in any of those countries and they quickly run under America's wing.. you know how that part works. Things change depending on circumstances and rather quickly. I would add to "we'd better care about how America is perceived"... selectively. There are plenty of people and countries who don't like America because of the very things America stands for and the kind of life it offers. That'll never change and trying to somehow appeal to that crowd is both futile and completely unnecessary.

@ratiflar - truth hurts, eh... well, since obviously you're losing control - we'll leave this little debate as is. I don't want to see you pop any veins...

I'm not trying to be 'more' than anyone or anything. I am what I am (to quote a famous American sailor). I'm American, have been for 25 years, and proud of the fact. You, on the other hand, seeing your sentiments in this very post (sorry masbury, didn't mean to inspire such colorful English from someone) are a poor excuse for one... Talk about a reason not to like Americans...

(there was a recommendation back in the old country for people in your state (of mind)... and that was to start running, increasing the speed and then at fu...

@ratiflar - truth hurts, eh... well, since obviously you're losing control - we'll leave this little debate as is. I don't want to see you pop any veins...

I'm not trying to be 'more' than anyone or anything. I am what I am (to quote a famous American sailor). I'm American, have been for 25 years, and proud of the fact. You, on the other hand, seeing your sentiments in this very post (sorry masbury, didn't mean to inspire such colorful English from someone) are a poor excuse for one... Talk about a reason not to like Americans...

(there was a recommendation back in the old country for people in your state (of mind)... and that was to start running, increasing the speed and then at full speed slam the head into a cement wall... according to the Russians - it helps to alleviate the situation... some free non-American therapy for ya)

Leadership, friends, is partly about how well people communicate. Politicians do not succeed solely on the basis of their positions - they have got to get people to follow them. "Do people want to follow this person?" is one of many important questions to be asked of candidates.

Regarding Iran, Ahmadinejad is not the president in the sense that we Americans use. He is not the commander-in-chief. He is not the shaper of foreign policy. He is in real danger of losing his position, and likely will, unless Bush stirs up Iranian nationalism by more bellicose rhetoric or action. See Iran is no threat unless Bush makes it one. And [url=...

Leadership, friends, is partly about how well people communicate. Politicians do not succeed solely on the basis of their positions - they have got to get people to follow them. "Do people want to follow this person?" is one of many important questions to be asked of candidates.

Regarding Iran, Ahmadinejad is not the president in the sense that we Americans use. He is not the commander-in-chief. He is not the shaper of foreign policy. He is in real danger of losing his position, and likely will, unless Bush stirs up Iranian nationalism by more bellicose rhetoric or action. See Iran is no threat unless Bush makes it one. And Ahmadinejad, nukes, and weapons.

Regarding:

There are plenty of people and countries who don't like America because
of the very things America stands for and the kind of life it offers.

I realize this has been pitched hard to us, but I know of no evidence to support it. Muslims around the world mostly like what America stands for. Here's the best evidence gathered to date, as far as I know: What a billion Muslims really think. They like what America is but they don't like what it does in their countries.

That's where the rub is... if your theory is correct, masbury - ah-I-need-a-bomb won't need one in six months, since Bush will no longer be a factor. Nothing 'stirred' - nothing lost. However, if you're wrong (and I think you are) - he is going to continue his quest for nukes and nukes in the wrong hands... well, I'm sure you get the picture. People who send their kids to die willingly can't be trusted to "do the right thing", because there's an excellent chance that they won't. Now we could take the hands off approach to see what develops or proactively do something. Case in point - WW2... if hitler was stopped in Munich - there wouldn't be WW2, or English translation - tens of million...

That's where the rub is... if your theory is correct, masbury - ah-I-need-a-bomb won't need one in six months, since Bush will no longer be a factor. Nothing 'stirred' - nothing lost. However, if you're wrong (and I think you are) - he is going to continue his quest for nukes and nukes in the wrong hands... well, I'm sure you get the picture. People who send their kids to die willingly can't be trusted to "do the right thing", because there's an excellent chance that they won't. Now we could take the hands off approach to see what develops or proactively do something. Case in point - WW2... if hitler was stopped in Munich - there wouldn't be WW2, or English translation - tens of millions of lives would've been spared. The trick with this madman who wants the Japanese to envision the world without USA, is not to make a similar mistake, because of just how costly it might be.

I don't know what muslims around the world think, but doing basic math gives you a relatively clear picture. According to a study that was done in the Middle Eastern countries (I think it was Pew... I referred to it somewhere a few months back... don't have the link handy, but I'm sure you can located it if you're interested) - 98+% of most countries stated that they do not like the Jews and certainly don't support Israel. US does. Considering this formula, what do you think their views are? Do you think the anti-American rhetoric being spewed like water in Iran and elsewhere, the 'great satan' as some of our 'friends' refer to us publically - do you think that's not an indication of how they feel?

And it has nothing to do with Bush... it's America in general. That's exactly what I've personally witnessed back in USSR. America was the enemy, not a certain President or certain deeds. I'll bet you it's exactly the same in other countries, since the propaganda machine is very similar in nature.

1. Yes, we did have 9/11, but Iran had nothing at all to do with it (nor did Iraq, for that matter). Iran hasn't invaded a foreign country for a thousand years.

2. The differences between Iran and Nazi Germany are vast. Nazi Germany was an industrial giant that had already invaded other countries and had vast war capability. Iran is a developing country with no means of carrying on long-range warfare that has no record of invasion of other countries.

3. Ahmadinejad does not represent Iran in foreign policy. Iran is a vast, diverse country, and Ahmadinejad could not take it to war if he wanted to, not being the Commander in Chief. He is a blowhard that is as much of an embarrassme...

1. Yes, we did have 9/11, but Iran had nothing at all to do with it (nor did Iraq, for that matter). Iran hasn't invaded a foreign country for a thousand years.

2. The differences between Iran and Nazi Germany are vast. Nazi Germany was an industrial giant that had already invaded other countries and had vast war capability. Iran is a developing country with no means of carrying on long-range warfare that has no record of invasion of other countries.

3. Ahmadinejad does not represent Iran in foreign policy. Iran is a vast, diverse country, and Ahmadinejad could not take it to war if he wanted to, not being the Commander in Chief. He is a blowhard that is as much of an embarrassment to most Iranians as Bush is to 75% of Americans, but the president of Iran is not the Chief Executive of the nation. It is not like the American office of President.

4. There is no reason to believe that, even IF Iran ever developed a nuclear weapon, it would be any threat to the USA. You gotta get it here; they do not have an air force capable of doing that.

5. All we know for sure is that Iran has oil and the USA wants it. I don't know who you mean by:

People who send their kids to die willingly can't be trusted to "do the right thing"

but I think you are speaking of suicide bombers, and I don't know of a single Iranian suicide bomber. The majority - including the majority of 9/11 hijackers - come from our "ally" Saudi Arabia.

6. There is simply no evidence indicating Iran is a threat to the USA - none! Invading them would be a war crime. Neocons want the USA to dominate the region, but it would be utterly criminal to kill innocent Iranians on the hunch that they might, somehow, want to harm us someday.

If things are as you say - why is Israel nervous on the subject? And what is your scenario if the 'blowhard' does manage to drop something on Israel? (personally, I don't think they'll give him a chance, but I can easily see major war erupting there).

As for Iran staying out of wars - they certainly manage enough surrogates (like hezbollah, syria etc.).

I heard Richard Clark a few days ago on the radio (yes, the same one that certainly wouldn't be called a Bush advocate)... and at the end of the interview he was asked who he thinks the biggest threat to stability in that region is... and without thinking twice he said that it was Iran.

Now either many of the experts on the subject, inclu...

If things are as you say - why is Israel nervous on the subject? And what is your scenario if the 'blowhard' does manage to drop something on Israel? (personally, I don't think they'll give him a chance, but I can easily see major war erupting there).

As for Iran staying out of wars - they certainly manage enough surrogates (like hezbollah, syria etc.).

I heard Richard Clark a few days ago on the radio (yes, the same one that certainly wouldn't be called a Bush advocate)... and at the end of the interview he was asked who he thinks the biggest threat to stability in that region is... and without thinking twice he said that it was Iran.

Now either many of the experts on the subject, including him, are wrong or your dislike for the 'neocons' seriously disrupts your sense of reality.

Hopefully we won't have to call you Mr. Chamberlain... Your description of the nazi's was accurate, except you omitted a minor point - the country was nothing at the end of WW1... and the world stood by & let hitler rebuild it into what you described.

Whether ah-I-want-Israel-off-the-map runs the nuclear ambitions or not - someone there certainly is continuing to enrich uranium etc.

Hmm, I think many see the rise of Nazism as a result of the heinous conditions forced upon Germany at the end of WW1 - indeed, many see WW2 as the consequence of the hopelessly harsh judgments set up at the end of WW1.

The USA has harassed Iran since WW2 - taking down its pioneering democracy in 1953 and replacing it with a secret-police dominated, wholly corrupt dictator. The cause: oil. Britain and the US were making money hand over fist off of unfair trade. Iran offered to split the profits 50-50, and when the West refused (being used to getting 80 or 90%), Iran nationalized the industry, and the CIA took out the democracy. Purely over oil.

Two decades later, Iranians of many ...

Hmm, I think many see the rise of Nazism as a result of the heinous conditions forced upon Germany at the end of WW1 - indeed, many see WW2 as the consequence of the hopelessly harsh judgments set up at the end of WW1.

The USA has harassed Iran since WW2 - taking down its pioneering democracy in 1953 and replacing it with a secret-police dominated, wholly corrupt dictator. The cause: oil. Britain and the US were making money hand over fist off of unfair trade. Iran offered to split the profits 50-50, and when the West refused (being used to getting 80 or 90%), Iran nationalized the industry, and the CIA took out the democracy. Purely over oil.

Two decades later, Iranians of many political parties revolted against the dictator, and the religious batch - the ones that were regarded as most honest and most non-American, won power. Turkish radio broadcast a rumor that the USA would again take down the government, and student crowds stormed the Embassy, beginning the US hostage crisis.

On and on the story goes. It is true that Iran is now a destabilizing force in the region - but the neocons advocate more anti-Iran action, and that is a large part of what has caused the destabilization.

Yes, we need to do all we can to keep Iran from becoming more dangerous. But meanwhile, we need to do all we can to repent of the destructions we've foisted on them, and become a nation they can trust not to steal what they have. What I want most is for America to become fair, and quit the swindling.

Britain was not a serious threat to the Nazis; the Iranians know all too well how willing the USA has been to shed Iranian blood and take Iranian treasure by force. Those who hate us do so because of what we've done to them for half a century.

It's hard for me to believe that you actually subscribe to such logic... but I guess to each his own.

We did this, we did that... listening to you - everything is what we did and is our fault and it's about the 'treasure', which is ridiculous... to somehow even attempt to justify what hitler did... that goes beyond non-sense...

And if we did all this replacement of governments etc. - why didn't we take out the people who weren't pro-US? Since we do this all the time anyway - why didn't we take out khomeini or the little excuse for being called 'napoleon' running around now? And the treasure - of course... where the heck is our Iraqi 'treasure'? Or is the result that we are taking Iraqi ...

It's hard for me to believe that you actually subscribe to such logic... but I guess to each his own.

We did this, we did that... listening to you - everything is what we did and is our fault and it's about the 'treasure', which is ridiculous... to somehow even attempt to justify what hitler did... that goes beyond non-sense...

And if we did all this replacement of governments etc. - why didn't we take out the people who weren't pro-US? Since we do this all the time anyway - why didn't we take out khomeini or the little excuse for being called 'napoleon' running around now? And the treasure - of course... where the heck is our Iraqi 'treasure'? Or is the result that we are taking Iraqi treasure just had me pay $4.27 a gallon at a local gas station? If you did use even a tiny bit of logic... how is it that you don't drive more and I don't drive more... and we have all this oil that we so greedily take from these places and we're paying through the nose for gas?

Hmm, I think many see the rise of Nazism as a result of the
heinous conditions forced upon Germany at the end of WW1 - indeed, many
see WW2 as the consequence of the hopelessly harsh judgments set up at
the end of WW1.

My conclusion about WW2 was based on the above comment. How else would you interpret it? And as for 'many', I think more accurate would be some... just like 'some' think Holocaust never happened either... certainly not a sentiment shared by anyone with a brain that hasn't been brainwashed by some false ideology.

I don't think we're 'minimizing' the dark side... just some choose not to dwell on it and concentrate on the positive instead of negative. T...

Hmm, I think many see the rise of Nazism as a result of the
heinous conditions forced upon Germany at the end of WW1 - indeed, many
see WW2 as the consequence of the hopelessly harsh judgments set up at
the end of WW1.

My conclusion about WW2 was based on the above comment. How else would you interpret it? And as for 'many', I think more accurate would be some... just like 'some' think Holocaust never happened either... certainly not a sentiment shared by anyone with a brain that hasn't been brainwashed by some false ideology.

I don't think we're 'minimizing' the dark side... just some choose not to dwell on it and concentrate on the positive instead of negative. That does NOT for a minute mean that we (some of us, of course) have forgotten the sins, respect or wish to repeat them, but what's done is done and screwing things up today for some baggage from before doesn't fix what was done before, nor helps what's going on now.

And I totally disagree that 'our misdeds need to be a serious element of foreign policy'. Our misdeeds are our own, just as theirs are theirs (them being EVERYONE excluding us). I have no problems with us debating our own actions etc. But that's us, provided that we're proponents of our own country and appreciate it and want to better it so our kids and their kids will get something better than what we have. But incorporating it into foreign policy will do nothing more than weaken the country in front of our enemies, to be specific. I don't believe that would be of any help to the country at all. I'm assuming that you deal with the issues and problems within your family... within your family. You don't go out publically to your neighbors and bring out your dirty laundry there. Should be the same with the country. We, the citizens of the country need to do whatever to debate things, change things etc., but to the rest of the world - we need to be American first... otherwise - there's no country.

he USA has harassed Iran since WW2 - taking down its pioneering democracy in 1953 and replacing it with a secret-police dominated, wholly corrupt dictator. The cause: oil. Britain and the US were making money hand over fist off of unfair trade. Iran offered to split the profits 50-50, and when the West refused (being used to getting 80 or 90%), Iran nationalized the industry, and the CIA took out the democracy. Purely over oil.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to jump back into the conversation at the last minute, but this comment was rather disturbing. I don't think I would be the only one who would appreciate a respectable reference when you make a claim like this. If it's true then ...

he USA has harassed Iran since WW2 - taking down its pioneering democracy in 1953 and replacing it with a secret-police dominated, wholly corrupt dictator. The cause: oil. Britain and the US were making money hand over fist off of unfair trade. Iran offered to split the profits 50-50, and when the West refused (being used to getting 80 or 90%), Iran nationalized the industry, and the CIA took out the democracy. Purely over oil.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to jump back into the conversation at the last minute, but this comment was rather disturbing. I don't think I would be the only one who would appreciate a respectable reference when you make a claim like this. If it's true then I see where you're coming from, but it looks like conspiracy theory to me.

Hmm, I think many see the rise of Nazism as a result of the heinous conditions forced upon Germany at the end of WW1 - indeed, many see WW2 as the consequence of the hopelessly harsh judgments set up at the end of WW1.

I would have to agree with masbury on this one... I think most historians would agree that the main cause for Hitler's rise was the overwhelmingly harsh economic conditions and overall discontent after WW1. The economic conditions were in large part due to the harsh reprisals and judgements passed on to them by the Allies after they lost WW1. I suppose some of the discontent could be attributed to the corrupt and inefficient government that Germany had at the t...

Hmm, I think many see the rise of Nazism as a result of the heinous conditions forced upon Germany at the end of WW1 - indeed, many see WW2 as the consequence of the hopelessly harsh judgments set up at the end of WW1.

I would have to agree with masbury on this one... I think most historians would agree that the main cause for Hitler's rise was the overwhelmingly harsh economic conditions and overall discontent after WW1. The economic conditions were in large part due to the harsh reprisals and judgements passed on to them by the Allies after they lost WW1. I suppose some of the discontent could be attributed to the corrupt and inefficient government that Germany had at the time. Then again if the world would have taken action sooner after Hitler rose to power instead of trying to appease him with small concessions, the devasting consequences of WW2 would certainly have been minimized, at least in my opinion. I don't think you can compare the two though, they may seem similar but they are two different scenarios.

jmjoness: Complete agreement, here, with your last two comments. Unwise foreign policy creates situations in which corruption flourishes. And I certainly agree that Ahmadinejad is a foolish ruler (as does every Iranian I've ever met). Your point that the Iran has every right to the development of peaceful nuclear technology is both courageous and correct.

Regarding whether the US's messing with Iran is conspiracy theory, no, it is available everywhere in black and white. I do hope you'll take a quick skim of A brief history of Iran-US relations, a summary of a speech by U...

jmjoness: Complete agreement, here, with your last two comments. Unwise foreign policy creates situations in which corruption flourishes. And I certainly agree that Ahmadinejad is a foolish ruler (as does every Iranian I've ever met). Your point that the Iran has every right to the development of peaceful nuclear technology is both courageous and correct.

Regarding whether the US's messing with Iran is conspiracy theory, no, it is available everywhere in black and white. I do hope you'll take a quick skim of A brief history of Iran-US relations, a summary of a speech by University of Michigan Middle-East scholar Juan Cole in Iowa City a while back. I supplemented it with details from common encyclopedias. Most Americans are unaware, for instance, that the US military shot down an Iranian commercial airliner a decade or so ago. Yet how outraged we are still - and justifiably so - about the Libyans doing that to one of ours!

Thanks for your careful thought and even temper!