Showdown with Iran

[Pangloss]

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.

[bascule]

It seems Valerie Plame was involved in operations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, before certain individuals in the administration outed her in response to her husband's declaration that claims about Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium yellowcake were fraudulent. The exposure of Plame's contacts in response to her being outed can't be ascertained, but Plame has implied (in the linked video) that it's, well, bad...

 

To put it bluntly, this administration sacrificed CIA counter-nuclear operations in Iran to spread lies about Iraq...

[Pangloss]

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.

[iNow]

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.

 

So, are you suggesting that we should all just forget about this and other issues if they have any partisan over tones?

 

I agree with you that partisanship is hindering our progress as a people. I agree with you that the actions surrounding the Plame case was damaging to "the fabric of the nation." However, I find the need for accountability on this issue extends FAR beyond simple partisan attack. This is so wrong on so many levels that you yourself would be doing your country diservice to attempt to push it aside as simple partisan pyre.

 

 

Per Iran, it seems that we've forgotten about the good people who reside in that country, instead placing our focus entirely on their meglomaniac leader. Talk about demonization...

 

• Why is nobody talking about the way we've been demonizing the Iranian people?
  
• How come we are not discussing the plight of the populace who reside there?
  
• Why must we insist on focussing on gay marriage... oops, I meant stem cell research... oops, I meant abortion... oops, I meant tax cuts in the face of massive budget deficit... erm... No... of course... nuclear threat with another election cycle approaching?
  

[ParanoiA]

Per Iran, it seems that we've forgotten about the good people who reside in that country, instead placing our focus entirely on their meglomaniac leader. Talk about demonization...

 

From what I've read the people of Germany were good folk, yet Hitler was their leader. Being nice didn't exactly work out for Europe did it? Maybe they should have demonized him from the start, since that would have been accurate. As is the case with Ahmadinejad.

 

Why is nobody talking about the way we've been demonizing the Iranian people?

 

Who's demonizing the Iranian people? We're demonizing a government that regularly calls for the wholesale destruction of millions of people...over a label. Remember how ridiculous labels are?

 

No, they're not "suggesting" or "implying" or anything remotely cryptic about it - Ahmadinajad is coming right out and saying it, calling for the destruction of Israel.

 

Why is it that the Bush administration can get "demonized", compared to Hitler and fascism, calls for impeachment and neverending liberal TV bashing for wire-tapping international calls into the US without a warrant, yet Ahmadinejad can call for a wholesale slaughter of millions of human beings, all while using religion to control, oppress and contain his own people - and we can't even "demonize" him?

 

Please. If that isn't partisan...

 

This guy is Bush 2.0. He's Bush on Meth. He should be getting twice the negative treatment Bush is getting.

 

How come we are not discussing the plight of the populace who reside there?

 

I didn't know their plight was particularly...uh..plightful. I mean, they elected him and they like him. And this wasn't a Saddam election either. From what I've seen, and I admit it hasn't been much, they're doing fine as far as religiously brainwashed, oppressed people can be.

 

Why must we insist on focussing on gay marriage... oops, I meant stem cell research... oops, I meant abortion... oops, I meant tax cuts in the face of massive budget deficit... erm... No... of course... nuclear threat with another election cycle approaching?

 

Because humans multi-task? Not sure why we would need to stop any of these other debates...

 

Oh and tax cuts are always good.

[iNow]

Some of my post was remnants of recent conversations with people all riled up about what the latest news hot button was, speaking from ignorance and classing the whole of Iran into one bucket called "We should bomb the hell out of that." It really disgusted me.

 

Thanks for keeping me on point. Btw - Never said anything about stopping debate, just stopping intentional distractions.

[ParanoiA]

Some of my post was remnants of recent conversations with people all riled up about what the latest news hot button was, speaking from ignorance and classing the whole of Iran into one bucket called "We should bomb the hell out of that." It really disgusted me.

 

Me too. I've been running into more and more of that here lately. Lazy intellectualism is nothing new, but these folks take ignorance to a whole new level. I keep hearing folks advocating the use of the H bomb to solve all of these problems. Hard to imagine that people can so flippantly dismiss millions of people like that. And it seems to be a result of intellectual frustration. Well shit man, these problems have been going on for centuries, did they really think it would be easy?

[Pangloss]

So, are you suggesting that we should all just forget about this and other issues if they have any partisan over tones?

 

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 agree with you that the actions surrounding the Plame case was damaging to "the fabric of the nation." However, I find the need for accountability on this issue extends FAR beyond simple partisan attack. This is so wrong on so many levels that you yourself would be doing your country diservice to attempt to push it aside as simple partisan pyre.

 

I'm not pushing the entire Plame case aside, I'm saying that it doesn't prove that Bush lied about WMDs.

 

 

Per Iran, it seems that we've forgotten about the good people who reside in that country, instead placing our focus entirely on their meglomaniac leader. Talk about demonization...

 

• Why is nobody talking about the way we've been demonizing the Iranian people?
  
• How come we are not discussing the plight of the populace who reside there?
  
• Why must we insist on focussing on gay marriage... oops, I meant stem cell research... oops, I meant abortion... oops, I meant tax cuts in the face of massive budget deficit... erm... No... of course... nuclear threat with another election cycle approaching?
  

 

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.

[bascule]

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.

 

You're right, the 16 words weren't a "lie"... they were carefully crafted to defer all blame to the British Government.

 

Bush was just fearmongering with unsubstantiated intelligence reports that turned out to be false

[DrDNA]

All of this comparing Ahmadinajad to Hitler and demonizing Iran by the quote, unquote neocons is, of course, just propoganda setting us up for the next military action. I'm not saying that Ahmadinajad is anything to be warm and fuzzy about by any means but the simple truth is we (the US especially but also the rest of the West) are, in large part, responsible for the situation over there (a la the shaw) much like we helped create the one in Iraq (a la Sadam). Now we are facing the consequences of that sin. It's a mess with no apparent easy solutions to be found.

Military action very well could be inevitable.

 

 

Some of my post was remnants of recent conversations with people all riled up about what the latest news hot button was, speaking from ignorance and classing the whole of Iran into one bucket called "We should bomb the hell out of that." It really disgusted me.

 

 

I share your sentiments iNow. I wish we could make a law that said in effect that anytime anyone used the word bomb, in the context of a militrary act vs another country, they would have to include the word people. If we were forced to admit to ourselves that there are real people that are getting blown up by the bombs, I think it would be cause for pause. George W Bush would be forced to say, for example, "today we bombed the people of Iran". I don't think there would be a much cheering. Ok, I'm through with la la land.....

[CDarwin]

From what I've read the people of Germany were good folk, yet Hitler was their leader. Being nice didn't exactly work out for Europe did it? Maybe they should have demonized him from the start, since that would have been accurate. As is the case with Ahmadinejad.[/Quote]

 

Oh, please. Not Admadinejad = Hitler again. Not only does Ahmedinijad not have an iota of the power Hitler did, you're being awfully charitable to someone who actually murdered millions, not just ranted about it.

 

Who's demonizing the Iranian people? We're demonizing a government that regularly calls for the wholesale destruction of millions of people...over a label. Remember how ridiculous labels are?

 

Iranians are extremely nationalistic. When you demonize their government, they percieve it as a slight. I'm not saying criticism of Iran doesn't have a place, but being so theatrical about it doesn't score us any points. When we call Iran part of an "axis of evil", it's a slap in the face of every Iranian. That's not going to put anyone into a cooperative mood.

 

This guy is Bush 2.0. He's Bush on Meth. He should be getting twice the negative treatment Bush is getting.

 

Did you not notice what happened when Ahmedinijad came to the US? Yeah, everybody's in love with him.

I seriously don't think that if Bush gave a speech at Columbia University he would be called a 'dictator' by the president.

 

I didn't know their plight was particularly...uh..plightful. I mean, they elected him and they like him. And this wasn't a Saddam election either. From what I've seen, and I admit it hasn't been much, they're doing fine as far as religiously brainwashed, oppressed people can be.

 

Ahmedinijad is most popular when the West makes a martyr out of him by calling him "Hitler" and all that. The economy's in pretty bad shape and his morality crackdowns aren't terribly popular. He was elected because of the Iranians percieved that the reformers weren't getting results so they thought they'd try their hand with a hardliner.

[ParanoiA]

Oh, please. Not Admadinejad = Hitler again. Not only does Ahmedinijad not have an iota of the power Hitler did, you're being awfully charitable to someone who actually murdered millions, not just ranted about it.

 

That wasn't a comparison of the man but a comparison of the situation. The people of Iran might be really cool, but that's irrelevent when they're being led by a murderer. So far, it's verbal. Once he achieves the resources, I doubt it will stay that way.

 

Iranians are extremely nationalistic. When you demonize their government, they percieve it as a slight. I'm not saying criticism of Iran doesn't have a place, but being so theatrical about it doesn't score us any points. When we call Iran part of an "axis of evil", it's a slap in the face of every Iranian. That's not going to put anyone into a cooperative mood.

 

When Ahmadinejad is calling for the destruction of a race of people, that's not theatrical? He gets what he's given.

 

I understand your point about the Iranian people. It's relevance depends on the goal. Diplomacy is tricky stuff. It involves careful maneuvering and rhetoric, whether you like it or not. For interventionists, at this point, to allow his threats to go unchallenged is possibly more dangerious than stepping it up on our side.

 

Did you not notice what happened when Ahmedinijad came to the US? Yeah' date=' everybody's in love with him.

I seriously don't think that if Bush gave a speech at Columbia

University he would be called a 'dictator' by the president. [/quote']

 

I do.

 

Ahmedinijad is most popular when the West makes a martyr out of him by calling him "Hitler" and all that.

 

While that's true, that's also disingenuous. If the neighbors tell their kids that I'm a mean old man and one day I have to get on to them for throwing trash in my yard, then all I'm doing is validating the story huh?

 

This is the same thing. They poison their people with anti-american propaganda and you're telling me that when we spout off it empowers him. Perhaps so, but it's somewhat unavoidable and stacks the deck against us. Suddenly we're not allowed to call a spade, a spade - if we validate his poison. Perception is reality, so ultimately you're right. Again though, I think it's a careful balance.

 

All of this comparing Ahmadinajad to Hitler and demonizing Iran by the quote' date=' unquote neocons is, of course, just propoganda setting us up for the next military action. I'm not saying that Ahmadinajad is anything to be warm and fuzzy about by any means but the simple truth is we (the US especially but also the rest of the West) are, in large part, responsible for the situation over there (a la the shaw) much like we helped create the one in Iraq (a la Sadam). Now we are facing the consequences of that sin. It's a mess with no apparent easy solutions to be found.

Military action very well could be inevitable.[/quote']

 

I don't think demonizing Iran is "propaganda" by the neocons. Normally I wouldn't disagree, but in this case, there's little need for any propadanda. A rush to conflict, perhaps - I could see the neocons dramatizing it as much as possible - but they don't need any help portraying him as a man striving to become a murderer. He flip flops more than John Kerry. He'll tell us one day how he longs for peace with Israel, then he'll do an interview somewhere else declaring for Israel's destruction again.

[DrDNA]

I don't think demonizing Iran is "propaganda" by the neocons. Normally I wouldn't disagree, but in this case, there's little need for any propadanda. A rush to conflict, perhaps - I could see the neocons dramatizing it as much as possible - but they don't need any help portraying him as a man striving to become a murderer. He flip flops more than John Kerry. He'll tell us one day how he longs for peace with Israel, then he'll do an interview somewhere else declaring for Israel's destruction again.

 

I hope I didn't send the wrong message. I do believe that they are demonizing Iran wether Ahmedinijad deserves a lot or all of it or not. But Ahmedinijad is not Iran any more than George W is the US. The main point I wanted to get accross was that we helped create him and who knows what is really going on. Ahmedinijad seems to be a very sharp guy and he very well could be touched in the head. That said, he seems to be as adept at making all of us go up and down as Alan Greenspan was. Which gains him a ton of support from his base at home, who really pull all the strings anyway.

 

But the fact of the matter is, the neocons are playing the same music that they played before invading Iraq. And he hasn't killed anybody yet and he very well could be beating his chest about Israel, of he might not be either.....

 

That said, I saw an old jewish lady, a holocaust survivor, on TV one day say the main thing she learned from the ordeal and wanted everyone else to know was "when somebody tells you they are going to kill you better believe them because they are going to kill you".

 

But as I said, the fact of the matter is, he hasn't killed anybody. Yet or perhaps he won't.

[iNow]

Because humans multi-task? Not sure why we would need to stop any of these other debates...

 

Oh and tax cuts are always good.

My point was more that we're seeing, with another election cycle, the use of further weapons of mass destraction. All of the hot button issues that get the raving lunatics all worked up, as well as otherwise calm normal and rational people taking sides on issues that are not black and white. Dividing the populace is a method of controlling it, and I'm getting frustrated (as are many here) by the continued tactics of wedge issues instead of leadership toward common goals.

 

Sometimes, I really just get so pissed off and frustrated by it all, and I need to vent. I don't want to be partisan. I don't think attacking Bush or others will do a lot of good. I'd rather be focussing on how to fix the exponential quagmires that have been accumulating. It's just that when the bullshit keeps recurring, and the same lies keep being told, and the same people are not held accountable, and we instead focus the attention on some external enemy that has yet to be a true problem to our people... it makes me want to SCREEAAAMMMMM!!!!

 

 

 

 

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 too have problems with the Iranian leadership (sounds silly calling it that, really). I agree that perhaps you and our fellow members here at SFN are not necessarily demonizing the Iranian people. It just seems recently that so few people around us can tell the difference anymore, and so few people actually care to seperate a tyranical Iranian leader from an otherwise innocent Iranian group of bystanders.

 

 

I actually agree with concerns from the left that the process of demonization, however valid, is counterproductive to debate.

I'm not sure why you limited the expression of concerns to the "left," but agree that we are tumbling down a continued spiral of counterproductivity. We are (IMO) at a very critical turning point in human history and evolution. We are facing challenges like no other group of human life has before. It's time for leaders who bring people together to step up and lead the way to a better future. At present, the concept of us having a future at all seems very much in question.

 

 

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.

 

Again, I'm not sure why you limit it to the left, but I agree that we share infinitely more common ground on the underlying premise here than not. To be clear, my outrage is not at Bush for being a republican or right or some other retarded ever-changing label. My outrage is with the way we are bleeding from every pore and dropping on nearly every measure of social quality. There are so many things to be angry about, and absolutely none of it has to do with his label, and to be clear, nor is it just him that has magnified our collective problems.

 

Had Democrats been in office and been responsible for multiple aspects of the world we have now, I'd be equally venomous with my approach toward them. Again, the labels mean nothing to me. I don't care what color shirt you wear or what group association you have. I care what you do, what you support, what your vision is, and how your actions impact the people you lead, as well as those you do not.

 

With the way things sit right now, I'm frankly terrified about what the world will be like for my grandchildren, and I'm disheartened that nobody seems to be doing anything to move the proverbial social rudder and change course toward improvement. Not only do we seem to be heading directly into the storm, we seem also to be seeding the clouds of that storm and making it's destructive power and scope inflate and expand.

 

My points extend to SO much more than just Iran and how we are witnessing yet another symphony of war drums beating. Iran just represents the latest in a series of seemingly unchecked asinine behaviors and short-sighted policy and leadership.

 

 

<deep breath>

 

I suppose I could have just said that I'm not at all happy where we are nor where we seem to be heading, and I'm tired of the people I love being led down the wrong paths. Peace, and thanks.

[bascule]

All of this comparing Ahmadinajad to Hitler and demonizing Iran by the quote, unquote neocons is, of course, just propoganda setting us up for the next military action.

 

While I agree the chickenhawk neocons have demonized Ahmadinejad, he's still a Holocaust denier which makes him scum in my book.

 

He's not Hitler, but to a certain extent he's still working Hitler's ends... albeit for entirely different reasons.

 

That said, for some reason the neocons/press decided to focus on the wipe Israel off the map "quote," i.e. overblown mistranslation, rather than his views on the Holocaust... I guess because a "threat" against Israel better serves their warmongering purpose than does a direct attempt to downplay the Holocaust.

 

I guess some people don't see the mass murder of 6 million people as something deserving of our attention when they can blow a mistranslation out of proportion to serve the ends of leading America into yet another pointless war.

[Pangloss]

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

[bascule]

What exactly do you THINK it would look like if Hitler were in charge?

 

They might possibly be overseeing the execution of 6 million Jews, in addition to countless gypsies, gays, and other elements of society they deemed undesirable...

[iNow]

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.

I recall you making a post recently about "leading by example." No need to respond to the statements made by the Iranian goverment in kind. If a three year old calls you a poopy head, you don't generally get very far by responding to him that smells like a booger. Sometimes high horses get you out of the muck, and I believe it's time we got longer legs on our equestrian friends in the world.

 

When we let ourselves go on chanting about them, then we are no better.

[Pangloss]

They might possibly be overseeing the execution of 6 million Jews, in addition to countless gypsies, gays, and other elements of society they deemed undesirable...

 

Sure, after the fact. What would it look like before?

 

 

When we let ourselves go on chanting about them, then we are no better.

 

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?

[ParanoiA]

/rant

 

How exactly does partisan hatred trump logic so blatantly? Why in the world is anyone in here not placing Ahmadinejad in AT LEAST the same camp as GWB? I'm not talking about vocalizing to Iran, I mean right here.

 

Hell, if Bush even so much as cryptically hinted at advocating religious oppression he'd be strung up and declared Hitler's prodigy.

 

But Ahmadinejad...he's just talking smack...he don't mean it...blah blah blah

 

Give me a break. This is ridiculous. He's a wannabe mass murderer. He's vocalized it over and over again. He uses religion to control his people. He actually is the overblown rhetoric that people claim Bush is.

 

Seriously. We have folks so blinded with partisan hatred they actually say we're a fascist state. What, a couple of laws, literally, out of thousands, and our government changes it's entire political philosophy? That's lazy propaganda. Not even half-assed.

 

Then you have Ahmadinejad here who is Bush to the 10th power. Completely candid about his openly murderous views and has proven to poison the minds of his people - daily.

 

But yeah, Bush is the anti-christ dictator over the fascist american imperialists. Of course, once we have a democrat president and repeal like..uh..two laws...then all of the sudden we'll be back to all-knowing, all-loving, all-caring-for-children-and-poor-people gentle leader over the generous, free american hope for the world...

 

Come on. I'm completely a non-interventionist and Bush has violated the key principles of our country and I couldn't be any more pissed at him and resentful about it - but even I can see Ahmadinejad over shadows any power hungry, fascist, oppressive, warmongering, ethnic cleansing capacity Bush could ever possess.

 

/end rant

[DrDNA]

/rant

 

How exactly does partisan hatred trump logic so blatantly? Why in the world is anyone in here not placing Ahmadinejad in AT LEAST the same camp as GWB? I'm not talking about vocalizing to Iran, I mean right here.

 

Hell, if Bush even so much as cryptically hinted at advocating religious oppression he'd be strung up and declared Hitler's prodigy.

 

But Ahmadinejad...he's just talking smack...he don't mean it...blah blah blah

 

Give me a break. This is ridiculous. He's a wannabe mass murderer. He's vocalized it over and over again. He uses religion to control his people. He actually is the overblown rhetoric that people claim Bush is.

 

Seriously. We have folks so blinded with partisan hatred they actually say we're a fascist state. What, a couple of laws, literally, out of thousands, and our government changes it's entire political philosophy? That's lazy propaganda. Not even half-assed.

 

Then you have Ahmadinejad here who is Bush to the 10th power. Completely candid about his openly murderous views and has proven to poison the minds of his people - daily.

 

But yeah, Bush is the anti-christ dictator over the fascist american imperialists. Of course, once we have a democrat president and repeal like..uh..two laws...then all of the sudden we'll be back to all-knowing, all-loving, all-caring-for-children-and-poor-people gentle leader over the generous, free american hope for the world...

 

Come on. I'm completely a non-interventionist and Bush has violated the key principles of our country and I couldn't be any more pissed at him and resentful about it - but even I can see Ahmadinejad over shadows any power hungry, fascist, oppressive, warmongering, ethnic cleansing capacity Bush could ever possess.

 

/end rant

 

The problem may be that perhaps Bush has created his own worst enemy (himself). I hate what ifs, but I also have to wonder what attitudes would be like if he and his administration had handled Iraq differently.........

It is human nature to be shy after being bit.

[ParanoiA]

The problem may be that perhaps Bush has created his own worst enemy (himself). I hate what ifs, but I also have to wonder what attitudes would be like if he and his administration had handled Iraq differently.........

It is human nature to be shy after being bit.

 

True. But anything short of not handling Iraq, is going to be plagued with errors. That's life. Not allowed in politics. But it's still reality.

 

I'm really worn down on the whole "mishandling of Iraq" routine. This ridiculous mentallity that somehow our leaders are supposed to execute everything perfectly, lest they be a complete inept idiot. So, we put these overblown expectations on our leaders (for partisan reasons mind you), and then if they fail, which is what we set them up for, then we pretend like they're not good at anything at all. They're an idiot. They've mismanaged the whole thing. Oh my god, impeach the bastard...and blah blah blah.

 

And they call Ron Paul the quack...

 

On the one hand, I'm glad war is making everyone upset. It should. But they shouldn't be upset because it wasn't executed perfectly. They should be upset because it was wrong. They should be upset because we're out of line policing the world. They should be upset that we gave up our sovereignty to the UN. Not, for these silly notions of unachievable perfection.

[Pangloss]

Hossein Shariatmadari, editor-in-chief of Kayhan, Iran's major state-run newspaper:

 

Frankly, we consider Al Qaeda an American creation. It was created by the United States, and we have lots of evidence to back such a claim. Our doubts grew strongly when Mr. Bush pointed the finger at the Islamic world and accused several Muslim countries. Almost without exception, he accused every Muslim organization of being a suspect. These are all questionable. If you remember, even before that, the senior Bush was after a war in the Middle East, which didn't take place after some consultations. So did 9/11 take place to justify Mr. Bush's next moves? We believe this event paved the way for the neocons to take the actions they took next: invading Afghanistan, invading Iraq. And invading Iran was in the works, too.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/interviews/shariatmadari.html#2

 

Are we really the ones being too hyperbolic in the rhetoric? Really?

[iNow]

they threaten Israel's existence daily

 

I question this claim. Do you have support for this that I could look at?

 

Chances are you've seen something I have not. Daily threats to existence seem like something I'd have heard about though.

 

I am concerned that you may be exaggerating facts or arguining a point from a false premise. Thanks in advance if you would not delete this, now, second request for support of that comment.

[Pangloss]

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?