Showdown with Iran

[iNow]

So you cannot support it. Okay. Thanks.

[ParanoiA]

Did I read that correctly...that Iran suspended regular "Death to America" chants after 9/11? Surely I read that wrong.

[Pangloss]

So you cannot support it. Okay. Thanks.

 

So you cannot defend your earlier assertion. Okay. Thanks.

 

Did I read that correctly...that Iran suspended regular "Death to America" chants after 9/11? Surely I read that wrong.

 

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.

[iNow]

So you cannot defend your earlier assertion. Okay. Thanks.

Clever response there. Your question is irrelevant, since my intent was to illustrate how you were arguing from a false premise.

 

 

 

Put ANOTHER way, just because you hate Bush doesn't mean Iran are the good guys.

Indeed, and I agree. Anyone who suggests this is an idiot. Same with partisanship and attack not being of use. But, isn't that what we're doing? Isn't that exactly what GWB and DCs speeches have done to Iran these past few weeks? Beating the war drum exactly like the Iranian leadership chanting about death to Israel and the US caused 9/11?

 

Cheney's speech reminded me of the one he made in 2003 that got us into Iraq. It's like he has a ready set of words with a "fill in the blank" listed for the nation we're trying to target. WMDs... Nuclear ability... Get the populace stir crazy and we can do whatever we want... It's like geopolitical madlibs.

[DrDNA]

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.

 

 

Of course if anyone expected "perfection" in the situation, that would be unreasonable. However, I think we don't have to worry about that. We are miles and miles away from danger of that.

 

It has been handled, in my opinion and I'm sure the opinion of many others, much like a group of neighborhood kids playing army with their plastic toy soldiers. I just wish their mommies would call them home to take a bath.

 

Your points about not being there in the first place and giving up soverreignty I agree with.

[ParanoiA]

Of course if anyone expected "perfection" in the situation, that would be unreasonable. However, I think we don't have to worry about that. We are miles and miles away from danger of that.

 

It has been handled, in my opinion and I'm sure the opinion of many others, much like a group of neighborhood kids playing army with their plastic toy soldiers. I just wish their mommies would call them home to take a bath.

 

 

So you believe it's reasonable to win an unprecedented war without any set backs or mistakes? I don't believe so. We haven't fought a single war without set backs and mistakes. That includes the ones we won. In fact, if you dig into the particulars of our past wars, sheer luck is responsible for many a victory. Most of our wars have been expensive, and I'm not talking about money.

[DrDNA]

So you believe it's reasonable to win an unprecedented war without any set backs or mistakes? I don't believe so. We haven't fought a single war without set backs and mistakes. That includes the ones we won. In fact, if you dig into the particulars of our past wars, sheer luck is responsible for many a victory. Most of our wars have been expensive, and I'm not talking about money.

 

Expections were set at the begining.

Despite statements of "mission accomplished" and landing on aircraft carrier to great fanfare, other than deposing Sadam Hussein, those expectations have not been met.

On a scale of 1-10, rank of meeting expections in the course = approximately 3 (or less).

Grade for course = F.

Likelyhood that repeating course will lead to improvement = slim.

 

Conduct = F.

Student does not work well with others. Agressive, combative. Seems to believe violence is a solution to everything. Won't mind own business. Breaks other students' toys.

Suggest counseling.

[Pangloss]

Indeed, and I agree. Anyone who suggests this is an idiot. Same with partisanship and attack not being of use. But, isn't that what we're doing? Isn't that exactly what GWB and DCs speeches have done to Iran these past few weeks? Beating the war drum exactly like the Iranian leadership chanting about death to Israel and the US caused 9/11?

 

Cheney's speech reminded me of the one he made in 2003 that got us into Iraq. It's like he has a ready set of words with a "fill in the blank" listed for the nation we're trying to target. WMDs... Nuclear ability... Get the populace stir crazy and we can do whatever we want... It's like geopolitical madlibs.

 

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?

[iNow]

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?

Yes, it's very possible that consensus is not in the cards. Maybe we should ask what other members of the UN think? It'd be nice not to go unilateral again. Cheers.

[ParanoiA]

Expections were set at the begining.

Despite statements of "mission accomplished" and landing on aircraft carrier to great fanfare' date=' other than deposing Sadam Hussein, those expectations have not been met. [/quote']

 

I would be interested in what you think those expectations were. He said it would be a long, long war. It has been. He said it was about regime change. That happened. He said they have WMD's. They don't. They also miscalculated the tenacity of the insurgency. Sounds like every conflict we've ever been in. Wins and losses. Some things we get right, some things we don't. Per your logic, all the wars we've been in get an F. All of those presidents were idiots, that need counseling.

 

I would like to see some of us forum geeks actually challenge the battle wisdom of the generals involved in these decisions. My guess, like most things in life, there's WAY more to waging war than the piddly shit we harp on in here. We get the luxury of hindsight and ignorance of the dynamics.

 

Yes, it's very possible that consensus is not in the cards. Maybe we should ask what other members of the UN think? It'd be nice not to go unilateral again. Cheers.

 

Why should we give a crap what they think?

[DrDNA]

Why should we give a crap what they think?

 

I actually agree with you there.

 

One of the big problems I have with this whole mess is we are doing things and accepting responsability for things that the UN doesn't have the courage and/or lacks the will to do. Mandates and coalition forces my butt.

 

The UN is as worthless as a mammary gland on a boar hog. Get them off US soil. Send them to France.

[Sisyphus]

I think perhaps you guys misunderstand the purpose of the UN. It's not there to "do" anything as an entity in itself. It's an organization of sovereign nations designed to help them do things together and work out their differences openly in a formal setting.

[Dak]

@DrDNA and ParanoiA:

 

umm... iirc the UN is a peace-keeping organisation, not a peace-making organisation, and will only get involved in a conflict with the consent of both sides in order to enforce cease-fires etc.

 

So, they're not going to threaten iran just because the US doesn't like them, but might help out if the US and iran ask them too

[DrDNA]

I think perhaps you guys misunderstand the purpose of the UN. It's not there to "do" anything as an entity in itself. It's an organization of sovereign nations designed to help them do things together and work out their differences openly in a formal setting.

 

@DrDNA and ParanoiA:

 

umm... iirc the UN is a peace-keeping organisation, not a peace-making organisation, and will only get involved in a conflict with the consent of both sides in order to enforce cease-fires etc.

 

So, they're not going to threaten iran just because the US doesn't like them, but might help out if the US and iran ask them too

 

I'm not talking about Iran. I'm talking about Iraq.

 

Like I said, a male of any species doesn't make a very good wet nurse.

 

Kum Ba Yah

[ParanoiA]

I actually agree with you there.

 

One of the big problems I have with this whole mess is we are doing things and accepting responsability for things that the UN doesn't have the courage and/or lacks the will to do. Mandates and coalition forces my butt.

 

The UN is as worthless as a mammary gland on a boar hog. Get them off US soil. Send them to France.

 

No kidding. We resumed/initiated war based on United Nations violations. These weren't US terms given to Iraq, but UN terms. That was the face used to square off with Saddam up until our unilateral action.

 

I just can't go along with the idea of joining a prealigned group with military implications. That's just wrong right on the surface. War and alliances should be based on current merit with respect to the situation, in my opinion.

 

In fact, I was wondering today why the framers left declaration of war to the congress rather than directly from the people. Actually, I guess I can see why then, but how about now? Should we not leave the decision of war up to the people? Are we afraid that people will prove to be ultimately far more idealistic (ie...dangerously pacifist), while legislators tend toward pragmatism (ie...national security)?

[Sisyphus]

 

Like I said, a male of any species doesn't make a very good wet nurse.

 

Kum Ba Yah

 

And yet an organization of nations has proved surprising effective at preventing wars and promoting global prosperity. Hmm. Perhaps your analogy is flawed.

[DrDNA]

And yet an organization of nations has proved surprising effective at preventing wars and promoting global prosperity. Hmm. Perhaps your analogy is flawed.

 

That's right, just ask those poor souls that didn't get hacked to death under the blue hats' noses in Rwanda.

 

"Prosperity"? Whose wealth are they redistributing?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the UN is a great IDEA. But it is largely ineffective. Throwing cotton balls at anything has very little effect.

[ParanoiA]

@DrDNA and ParanoiA:

 

umm... iirc the UN is a peace-keeping organisation, not a peace-making organisation, and will only get involved in a conflict with the consent of both sides in order to enforce cease-fires etc.

 

So, they're not going to threaten iran just because the US doesn't like them, but might help out if the US and iran ask them too

 

I understand the intent, but "fighting forces" means committing other people's kids' lives for a foreign morality set. Our primary obligation is to our people, not to enforce ethics decided on by a group of foreign powers. If our soldiers are to go into combat, even potential combat, it should not be under any other flag or command than america and under no other order than directly from our congress or people.

 

Geez, their original title was United Nations Fighting Forces...peace-keeping you say? (actually, that's a cheap shot because it really wasn't the UN then, but I did find it amusing, please forgive)

[Pangloss]

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).

[iNow]

I would like to see some of us forum geeks actually challenge the battle wisdom of the generals involved in these decisions. My guess, like most things in life, there's WAY more to waging war than the piddly shit we harp on in here. We get the luxury of hindsight and ignorance of the dynamics.

Absolutely. However, this does not mean that our comments and ideas which we share on these boards have any less merit or validity. You do, though, raise a powerful point.

 

 

 

I think perhaps you guys misunderstand the purpose of the UN. It's not there to "do" anything as an entity in itself. It's an organization of sovereign nations designed to help them do things together and work out their differences openly in a formal setting.

Indeed. I think another point is that you get more done when you have the help and support of others than when you go it alone. My personal stance is that we are far too interconnected with the rest of the globe today to pretend that the lines on a cartographers map have any significance. I think it's time to stop acting like we in the US own the planet and stop being so damned arrogant and so frequently ignorant.

 

 

 

In fact, I was wondering today why the framers left declaration of war to the congress rather than directly from the people. Actually, I guess I can see why then, but how about now? Should we not leave the decision of war up to the people? Are we afraid that people will prove to be ultimately far more idealistic (ie...dangerously pacifist), while legislators tend toward pragmatism (ie...national security)?

This comment made me shudder. I think it would be the exact opposite. The people want blood and gore, witch burnings and public stonings, and modern day equivalents of gladiator matches. The masses often (myself included) fall prey to the hot button issue of the day, and I think it would be FAR too easy to get a majority of citizens to vote for war if they were properly primed for doing so.

 

However, maybe if something like this were implemented it'd at least get more of those who are "inclined toward hippy-esque notions" to cast their votes.

[DrDNA]

Besides Kum Ba Ya style ineffectiveness I can't believe I negelected to point out the UN's legacy of corruption.

 

Remember a tiny little scandal called oil for food? Great program. Helped a lot of people (NOT).

 

Sisyphus,

Were you refering to Kofi's, Kojo's, Al Queda's, and/or Sadam's "prosperity".

 

I started a new thread called "Discussion about the United Nations".

[Dak]

back to the OP: what right does the US actually claim to deny iran nukes? when the US has so many, and (iirc) officially subscribes to the concept of MAD as a justification for having so many?

[Pangloss]

back to the OP: what right does the US actually claim to deny iran nukes? when the US has so many, and (iirc) officially subscribes to the concept of MAD as a justification for having so many?

 

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.

[ParanoiA]

back to the OP: what right does the US actually claim to deny iran nukes? when the US has so many, and (iirc) officially subscribes to the concept of MAD as a justification for having so many?

 

Good question. Idealistically, none. About as much right as I have to break into my neighbor's house and destroy his Russian assault rifle. But then again, if he's been spouting off about wiping out the people down the street, I'm not so sure anyone's going to "legitimately" complain if I do that.

 

Also what about the other direction? What right does Iran have to introduce a technology so dangerous to mankind - not just Iran - when they don't have the maturity proven to handle it, maintain it? And surely you don't believe MAD is as effective on martyr driven theological socieities?

 

And then lastly, what rights are a nation afforded that it doesn't earn? On the international stage, we aren't under one order, so we get our rights by implied force. Ethically, I get your point, and I agree. But I can't say there would never be a situation where pragmatism outweights ideology and denying nuclear possession is imperative.

[iNow]

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!

Absolutely. It is a rather difficult spot. Part of the issue, at least in my eyes, is that we as the USA have lost credibility with the world, and due to our actions (especially recently) people are challenging our motivations and trustworthiness. We hold a lot more sway with the international community when we approach problems as focussed and supported leaders, truly looking out for the good of everyone. I really think that perception missing now, and many see us as out for only our own good, hence the challenges to our attempts at "policing."