Pangloss

I've never been convinced that ANYone would overtly use nukes ever again. I never thought it a real possibility even growing up during the height of the cold war. My main concern would be the fact that Iran is a state that supports terrorism covertly. THAT combined with a nuclear weapon is a reasonable cause for concern, and a valid reason to hypocritically trample on their "right" to own such horrendous weapons. But hey, we didn't seem to need proof to invade Iraq. If some terrorist group DID use a nuke against New York City today, I have no trouble believing that Tehran would be in need of superfund cleanup designation by tomorrow, regardless of the current political situation! But that'd still be a lot of dead people, and something to be avoided if at all possible, IMO, even if it is hypocritical.

I dunno, waitforufo's (0-1.0, i.e. relatively flat) figure actually looks pretty darn alarming to me -- it's still climbing and showing no signs of leveling off. But I can certainly see why that form of display would not be alarming to the general public, suggesting that a change of display parameters would better demonstrate why the climb is more relevent to them than the above chart would seem to indicate. After all, we'd all be dead LONG before the number reached "1.0". A chart that gives a better perspective on the danger seems reasonable to me. The danger is that once you've started mucking with charts it becomes tempting to show a chart that doesn't just put into correct perspective, but rather shows the steepest climb possible for the given data. That should be avoided even if it gives people the desired impression.

Moved to pseudoscience and speculations.

No, I'm saying that Putin's taking advantage of the current international political furor over the Bush administration (and its resulting diplomatic weakness) to leverage his position on a variety of issues, including missile defense. No I wasn't. Examples: Those are clearly statements of opinion, not statements of fact. Oh it's a very realistic observation, IMO. Russia is being accused of saying one thing in the UN and doing another behind everyone's backs. They're selling serious military hardware to Iran on a regular basis, which they justify as defensive, and that "plays", because of the subject I raised -- people on the street see this as a Bush-V-Iran issue. Yup, it's a frequent point of debate and one that I think both sides have valid opinions on. One of those subjects that it seems to me that both sides may be right about -- it's hypocritical and dictatorial for them to do it, but if they stop it'll be nuclear holocost. So we need them to keep doing it, at least until they grow up. I don't like the Oprah crowd (mainstream socio-political opinion) determining how everyone else should behave; it's just better than the alternative.

It's not a statement of fact, it's a concern. I'm already aware of areas of international politics where the focus is not (at least overtly) criticism of US policy. But I know of NO major areas of international politics that have not been affected to some degree by criticism of US policy. Oh you're right, I'm sorry. The Internet is NOT chock full of examples of people automatically responding negatively to every policy decision made by the Bush administration. I can't imagine what I was thinking. Indeed, we're losing the war of realpolitik, no question about it. Our adversaries (not enemies... yet) have smart people at work and good resources and support at their disposal. And I just gave an example, in Mr. Putin. His missile defense moves seem to confound western observers, pushing forth hardline stances and then suddenly and magically retracting them to softer stances just when things seem ready to get out of hand. Haven't you been watching the news? Then you agree?! So why all the demands for proof when I was merely expressing my concerns? Or am I not allowed to have concerns and express them without providing proof positive that my fears have already become reality, even though I clearly stated that they were JUST concerns? Okay, the Chinese have instituted some movement towards greater internal civil rights. Bucha nice guys, they are. Doesn't really have anything to do with the currrent point, since you've already agreed that they're playing the realpolitik game very well right now.

Ten seconds later he gets fragged because he can't concentrate. I've seen several of these various incarnations of computer-game impatience (syndrome?), and they all seem to date from an event that took place in World of Warcraft a couple of years ago, called the "Leroy Jenkins" incident.

Yah the South Korea example needs to be brought up more often, IMO. We've talked about it here a couple of times but I don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere in the public discourse, the general media, and so forth, at least in relation with this topic. I thought that last paragraph was interesting as well. It also makes me think that perhaps the positive benefits are of such a slight and long-term nature that it's hard to see the benefit on a daily basis. It took decades for South Korea to recover and reach prominence in its region, for example. Rehashing my question about presenting benefits to American critics, I think a reasonable point there would be that we saw a number of direct benefits to that situation, ranging in scope from cheap television sets to lives saved from lack of war.

I share much of your sentiment, and IMO that's the consequence of our most recent actions in the Middle East. But that doesn't mean our policy toward Iran is wrong. I fear that people are so busy being angry with the United States that they've lost sight of the bigger picture. And I suspect this is happening across the board, not just with Iran. It seems to affect economic policy, environmental policy, even humanitarian policy. Criticism of American foreign policy seems to be the dominant subject in every single area of international politics today. And to some extent that's actually desirable -- we WANT people to criticize American foreign policy in international debate. But it seems like there are far too many people who are willing to say things like "well the US wants X, therefore that must be incorrect policy; we should do Y instead." And too many countries, especially Russia and China, are not only poised to take advantage of our distraction, but are in fact already actively doing so. The irony is that it's all happening right under our noses. It's not some sort of complex, convoluted Tom Clancy-esque chain of unlikely events. It's all right there in black and white. Just take a look at how Putin is running his country right now. Wave a stick about, blame that stick on American foreign policy, then pull back a notch and offer a carrot as a way out. Result, everyone blames Bush and calls Putin a hero! Rinse, repeat. Or the Chinese -- massive economic overhaul, manned space program, communications infrastructure, anti-satellite weaponry, and not one sign of civil liberties in sight. Is THAT how we want humanity going to the stars? I agree with the sentiment that it's time for the US to rejoin free western nations in unified foreign policy. But for pete's sake, that's a TWO WAY STREET. We have to work hard to make our leadership pay more attention to accurate intelligence, and SO DO OTHER WESTERN NATIONS. (Is it actually possible that the LEADERS of the Eurpean Union are clammoring for Iran to drop its nuclear weapons program, but the PEOPLE of the EU think it's all a ploy by the United States?!)

Whoa, Nellie! I'm completely taken aback, here. Dak that's simply incorrect. EU countries are actually at the HEART of efforts to get Iran to stop its nuclear program. Russia and China publically support these efforts -- not only have they refrained from vetoing security council resolutions on this issue, but they actually voted in FAVOR of them. (What they're doing behind the scenes is another matter, and I agree that they have a vested interest in helping Iran -- but let's first establish, please, that this is an international effort!) UN Security Council Resolution 1747, unanimously adopted in March, tightening sanctions against Iran after that nation refused Germany's offer of economic incentives to give up nukes. UN resolution 1696, from 2006, originally proposed by China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. UN resolution 1737, unanimously passed in late 2006, sponsored by France, Germany and the UK, imposing sanctions. (And offering to end them if Iran would agree to inspection NOT BY THE UNITED STATES, but by the IAEA!) The European Union took strong action just five months ago: Wikipedia article on the "EU 3"(UK, France and Germany) and the "EU 3+3" (adds Russia, China and the US) -- international alliances specifically aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear efforts. These actions are ongoing. Article discussing Germany's proposal for wider sanctions against Iran. I'm mystified where you got the impression that the US stands alone in wanting to see Iran stop its nuclear armament efforts. Why on Earth do you think that? Is this a common perception here? Er, huh?? When did we invade North Korea? (Mis-statement? Contextually confusing reference to Korean conflict of the 1950s?) I agree with your concern and I think you raise some valid questions, but I'm so shocked by your perception that the US is the only country opposed to Iran getting nuclear weapons that I'm disinclined to discuss it further until we straighten that out and determine that it's not a common perception here. One thing at a time!

Is that really a fair question, though? Isn't it pretty clear that there's an international desire to prevent Iran from having nukes? This is the kind of thing that, as an American, really makes me feel trapped into a no-win scenario when I hear it. I feel like if we support international efforts to keep nations like Iran and North Korea from having nukes, everyone accuses us of trying to exert our will on other countries. But if we DON'T support international efforts to keep nations like Iran and North Korean from having nukes, we get accused of falling asleep at the switch! I don't mean to diminish the question -- I think it's a perfectly reasonable one and I think it SHOULD be asked (not only whether the international community has that right, but also whether the US has that right). I'm just not buying the premise of it in the current debate (wrt Iran), and I think it treats us unfairly. It makes the argument about whether Iran should have nukes actually about American goals when it needs to be about Iranian goals.

Interesting. I would have guessed that "Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion." would be sufficient answer for the question, given that that's what ad hominem means. But I guess it's also a logical fallacy, sure enough. (shrug)

What might be a useful angle in this discussion (as well as the larger issue of mainstream Americans annoyed with the UN) would be to look at what benefits Americans have gained by their support for the UN over the years. One of the problems with rapidly increasing communications technology and the normal human weakness for differentiating between singular examples and larger trends is that we end up seeing things like Rwanda as examples of worsening, when in fact they may be better seen as exceptions to the rule. It seems to me that the general trend worldwide over the last 50 years has been towards LESSENING violence, atrocity, dictatorial rule, lack of religious freedom, lack of academic freedom, and so forth. If that's true (and I admit it's just a personal opinion), isn't it likely that the UN has played a role in that? But I was just looking in the Wikipedia (which I readily admit is not a reliable source), and there's an article there about something called the "Human Security Report 2005", which says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Security_Report_2005 But there is criticism in that article, including the following: So like I said, I can't back up the point, but perhaps others here can offer more detail along these lines.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=51&a=14

That's an interesting exchange between Sisyphus and DrDNA about the UN's effectiveness. I wonder if that warrants a thread of its own. My gut feeling on it is that it's probably "missed" as often as it has "hit", but I'm not sure that makes it a bad thing (i.e. both DrDNA and Sisyphus have valid points).

What would be an appropriate response from this administration? What action could this administration take with regard to Iran that you could accept? I'm not saying that you don't have any answers here and are only "making Bush wrong". But I do have a concern here that I think is valid -- is it possible that there is NO position that Dick Cheney or George Bush could take that would not be instantly repudiated by 50% of this country? Is it possible that we are going to be unable to reach a consensus on Iran because of partisanship?

So you cannot defend your earlier assertion. Okay. Thanks. They did. Frontline's piece on that was really interesting. In a nutshell, the basic idea was that after 9/11 the moderates were able to push forward a number of measures against the hard-liners, such as that one. But once the US put Iran on the "Axis of Evil", the moderates fell into disfavor and the hard-liners returned to prominence. And the "death to America" chants returned. IMO this supports the position of iNow and others in this thread that demonization is counter-productive, a position I've agreed with earlier in this thread. But Iran had an opportunity to step up and be a more cooperative and peaceful member of the community of nations. The fact that the United States has done this or that is irrelevent to the issue of what hardliners in Iran are doing. Two wrongs do not make a right. Put another way, Iran needs to step forward and solve the problems that the international community is demanding that it solve. Sitting back and continuing them, while insisting that it's all Bush's fault, plays great with the MoveOn.org crowd, but it doesn't mean that Iran is behaving correctly, and it makes the problem worse. Put ANOTHER way, just because you hate Bush doesn't mean Iran are the good guys.

Thanks in advance if you would treat me in a respectful and courteous way, as I treat you, and as you agreed to do when you joined this web site. Daily may be an exaggeration, I admit. Do you deny that they've taken that position in the past?. And what about my supported claim, above, that they've taken the position that Bush was behind 9/11? Aren't these examples of demonization? And more importantly, aren't these indications that Iran is a serious problem?

Hossein Shariatmadari, editor-in-chief of Kayhan, Iran's major state-run newspaper: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/interviews/shariatmadari.html#2 Are we really the ones being too hyperbolic in the rhetoric? Really?

Sure, after the fact. What would it look like before? I'm not the one marching down the street chanting "Bush lied kids died and Iran is next". I'm simply asking a question: His government is telling people that Republicans created Al Qaeda and Bush was behind 9/11, they threaten Israel's existence daily, and the religious arm is producing daily sermons requiring all participants to chant anti-American slogans at the top of their lungs. How, exactly, does he look different from Hitler in the 1930s?

I'm surprised at the popularity of the notion that Ahmadinejad has been demonized by the right/neocons/Bush administration. His government is telling people that Republicans created Al Qaeda and Bush was behind 9/11, they threaten Israel's existence daily, and the religious arm is producing daily sermons requiring all participants to chant anti-American slogans at the top of their lungs. What exactly do you THINK it would look like if Hitler were in charge? /boggle

It's not just men -- there's a high-pitched screem that women have taken to using on shows like Oprah and The View and Dr. Phil. I think it's just part of a nonsensical feedback loop between Hollywood and the lowest-common-denominator part of the public. I mean what other industry makes an almost academic study and practice out of the "pre-show audience prep"? "Oh, and, um, if some of you ladies in the back row could scream like you're being raped, Dr. Phil would really appreciate that. Thanks!"

No, I'm saying that accusing Bush of lying about WMDs is an allegation made for partisan reasons. It may be someone's honest opinion, but it's not a conclusion supported by the facts. I'm not pushing the entire Plame case aside, I'm saying that it doesn't prove that Bush lied about WMDs. I'm not sure if you retracted this in your second comment above, so I'll go ahead and agree with ParanoiA that I don't think we're demonizing Iranian people, I think we're demonizing Iranian leadership, but I think we have valid reasons for doing so. I actually agree with concerns from the left that the process of demonization, however valid, is counterproductive to debate. That's not a point you raised, and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I suspect it's one you might agree with and that it might give us some common ground in the discussion here, because I think it's part of the source of the left's ire about Bush's leadership on foreign policy issues. I think those concerns are valid. But they're carried to too far of an extreme when they react to any news regarding Iran in an instantly ABB manner. Iranian leadership is worthy of the criticism being leveled against it. It's not just one "megalomaniacal leader", either -- it's the entire religious government of Iran, living off disinformation and prejudice. It's not just the Holocost -- are you aware that Iranians are told daily that Americans created Al Qaeda and that Bush and Al Qaeda together were behind 9/11? These are people who's required daily prayers are full of "death to America" and "death to Israel" chants. There's no question that our foreign policy choices have made things worse. But I doubt the typical "Bush Lied Kids Died" chanter could even tell you which specific decisions made it worse, why it's worse, or agree with any suggestion that the mistakes that were made could just as easily been made by a Democrat.

The "Uplift" books by David Brin. On a less serious note, "Jennifer Government" by Max Barry is a great little five-minute read. Barry's kind of a humorous, low-key counterpart to Neil Stephenson. The movie project's been in turnaround for years but there've been noises recently about new producers taking another shot at it.

Plame herself wouldn't agree with you that her outing proves the administration was lying on WMDs. Oh she may indeed think they were lying on WMDs, but she went to great lengths in that same interview to point out something you've obviously forgotten -- that the president went on national TV saying that if the leak were in the administration he would be fired immediately -- a promise he then (in her opinion, but it's mine as well) failed to carry through on. As is so often the case, partisanship leads one to follow the right track to the wrong conclusion. The fact that Plame was outed is incredibly important and damaging to the fabric of this nation. But the fact that it's being leveraged to demonize Bush and Republicans is just adding fuel to a useless fire. Lost amidst all of the hullabaloo is the fact that a sitting President of the United States found a leak in his administration and failed to carry out his promise to fire those responsible. That's just not as useful to the salivating zealots because it doesn't step to the "Bush Lied Kids Died" tango. Another important learning opportunity chucked on the pyre of partisanship.

PBS's Frontline has a new episode out this week about the showdown between the United States and Iran. As usual it provides great insight into the conflict. The entire episode is available for viewing online. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/etc/synopsis.html One of the points presented in the piece is that the US missed an opportunity to work with Iran on settling Iraq before the insurgency. Unfortunately I think the producers let Iran off the hook for much of its two-wrongs thinking. If Iran is such a white hat how 'bout they show it by being a good neighbor instead of a bad one? People wondering "whether Bush will start another war" are asking the wrong question, IMO. The right question would be to ask whether Bush wants to be remembered as the guy that let Iran acquire the bomb, especially knowing that he's likely to leave the office to a far more appeasive person. I don't think this will go beyond air strikes, but I do expect we will see something along those lines at the very least.