Showdown with Iran

[Dak]

Is that really a fair question, though? Isn't it pretty clear that there's an international desire to prevent Iran from having nukes?

 

Well, not really. iirc, there's some EU countries disenclined to get involved. Russia supports iran, as do (iirc) most other middle-eastern countries.

 

[...]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.

 

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.

 

correct me if i'm wrong, but the iranian stance is that they want them as a deterrent against israel, who it is generally accepted have nukes. Not only is this identical to the US's stated reasons for having nukes (just swich 'russia' for 'israel'), but they point out that the US is the only country to have ever used nukes, and the only country to ever threaten being the first to resort to using nukes (against iran, no less). Also, the US have labeled iran as an 'axis of evil' state, and the other two in the axis have allready been invaded, no doubt scaring iran somewhat. So the 'spouting off about wiping out the people down the street' bit isn't a very good analogy.

 

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?

 

well, no, i'd agree with you on that last bit. But then, israel have nukes, and iirc the iranians tend to persieve israels actions as ethnically cleansing their state for theological reasons, and being aggressively militaristic (which is mainly why they don't like you, as you fund israel). So, for the same reason you don't want iran to have nukes, iran doesn't want israel to be the only one in that region with nukes.

 

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.

 

otoh, the US could go about this differently? maybe all the nuklear states getting together and agreeing to nuke whichever country uses nukes first would act as a true deterrent to ALL countries, and might mean that there's less incentive for iran to get nukes? and the US could allways promice not to be the first to use nukes in a conflict?

[Pangloss]

Whoa, Nellie! I'm completely taken aback, here.

 

Well, not really. iirc, there's some EU countries disenclined to get involved. Russia supports iran, as do (iirc) most other middle-eastern countries.

 

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:

 

In June 2007 leading EU countries including Britain, France and Germany cautioned Iran that it faces further sanctions for expanding uranium enrichment and curbing U.N. inspectors' access to its nuclear program. "Iran continues to ignore its obligations and has not taken any steps to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its program". Additionally, the EU offers Iran suspension of sanctions and a package of trade and industrial benefits if it suspends its nuclear program.

 

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?

 

 

the US have labeled iran as an 'axis of evil' state, and the other two in the axis have allready been invaded, no doubt scaring iran somewhat. So the 'spouting off about wiping out the people down the street' bit isn't a very good analogy.

 

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!

[Dak]

hmm... my beer and inpending pizza makes me disinclined to read your links untill tomorrow!

 

Untill then: I didn't mean to say that the US was acting alone, just that paranoia's statement that there was an 'international' desire might be slightly off -- that the international oppinion is split, rather than that iran shouldn't have nukes (tho, by the looks of your links, i might well have been wrong).

 

Sorry, forgot who the axis were ... my point was just that the US (and others) have invaded iraq, and are specifically focusing on iran and N.korea, so no doubt iran are quite uneasy atm. but yeah, my perception is that, justified or otherwize, the US has been threatening iran more than iran has been threatening the US, public we-hate-the-yanks demonstrations notwithstanding.

[Pangloss]

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?!)

[iNow]

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.

This is quite an exaggeration. You are speaking in absolutes, and if you need me to provide examples of areas of international politics where the focus is not criticism of US foreign policy, I'd be glad to supply several.

 

 

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."

Far too many people? How about you give us a few examples of people saying this. Real examples, not interpretations.

 

 

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.

This seems like a good strategy on their part. I am immediately reminded of Sun-tzu. However, do you have an example or two of how they are "already actively" taking advantage of our "distraction?"

 

 

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.

Well, he also kills reporters who say anything negative about him, and his special police force have a funny habit of making people disappear. That may play a role in what we hear about him, but yeah, sure, he blames the US for stuff as a distraction too I suppose.

 

 

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?

 

Not one sign? Hmm... First, supported by their economic reform over the past 20 years, the chinese people have greater freedom of choice in education, employment, housing, travel and other areas. China has passed several new civil AND criminal laws in an effort to protect their citizens rights, and they have signed multiple instruments in an effort to bring their country closer to international norms. They have also been taking steps to develop and implement electoral processes at the local level to involve villagers in the selection of their local authorities. Further, China has engaged in active dialogue with the EU regarding human rights, and has done so with zero pre-conditions. These are just a few examples proving your point wrong, but I could go out on google and find more if you truly wish to maintain the position you have presented here.

 

 

We have to work hard to make our leadership pay more attention to accurate intelligence, and SO DO OTHER WESTERN NATIONS.

Shouldn't our leadership do this without our prodding? Isn't that what we elect them to office to do (at least, in part)? Also, what is your evidence that other western nations are NOT paying attention to accurate intelligence?

 

 

(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?!)

 

I really don't understand this comment. It seems to be a biased presentation rooted in ego-centrism and skewed perception, but maybe I'm missing something. Can you clarify what the heck that means?

[Pangloss]

This is quite an exaggeration. You are speaking in absolutes, and if you need me to provide examples of areas of international politics where the focus is not criticism of US foreign policy, I'd be glad to supply several.

 

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.

 

 

Far too many people? How about you give us a few examples of people saying this. Real examples, not interpretations.

 

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.

 

 

And too many countries' date=' especially Russia and China, are not only poised to take advantage of our distraction, but are in fact already actively doing so.

[/quote']This seems like a good strategy on their part. I am immediately reminded of Sun-tzu. However, do you have an example or two of how they are "already actively" taking advantage of our "distraction?"

 

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?

 

 

Well, he also kills reporters who say anything negative about him, and his special police force have a funny habit of making people disappear. That may play a role in what we hear about him, but yeah, sure, he blames the US for stuff as a distraction too I suppose.

 

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?

 

 

Not one sign? Hmm... First, supported by their economic reform over the past 20 years, the chinese people have greater freedom of choice in education, employment, housing, travel and other areas. China has passed several new civil AND criminal laws in an effort to protect their citizens rights, and they have signed multiple instruments in an effort to bring their country closer to international norms. They have also been taking steps to develop and implement electoral processes at the local level to involve villagers in the selection of their local authorities. Further, China has engaged in active dialogue with the EU regarding human rights, and has done so with zero pre-conditions. These are just a few examples proving your point wrong, but I could go out on google and find more if you truly wish to maintain the position you have presented here.

 

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.

[iNow]

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.

"Effected to some degree" is quite a substantial step away from your original position. To that original position, let me provide some counter examples:

 

• Displaced people of Sudan or Sri Lanka
  
• Children fleeing rebel recruitment in the Congo
  
• The UN calling for greater security measures in Burma
  
• Recent debates in every international legislature (and research confirming same) that for several reasons racial and religious minorities tend to be consistently under-represented.
  
• The Darfu peace talks scheduled to begin in Libya
  
• Pakistanian former prime minister Benazair Bhutto returning from exile, and she is now seriously trading blows with the leadership about their participation in bombs and questionable security tactics, and her coordination with General Musharraf to ensure elections are not rigged.
  
• Attempts in the EU to quietly push through a treaty which will essentially act as a constitution but which was previously rejected in 2005 and shows little to no change from the original.
  

 

 

The only way your point that "Criticism of American foreign policy seems to be the dominant subject in every single area of international politics today" can maintain ANY footing is if you rely heavily on your comment "affected to some degree." However, this is a pretty weak base from which to structure an argument. If you wish to maintain your position that all international politics are impacted by criticism of US policy, I'd be glad to continue supplying you with examples to the contrary.

 

 

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.

EVERY policy decision, eh? Again, you are arguing in absolutes and basing your comments on false premises.

 

While I agree that the vast majority of decisions coming out of the Bush administration receive (justifiably so) negative response, even I (if I were forced to argue you out of your mistaken statement) could supply examples to the contrary (where a policy decision by the Bush administration received positive response).

 

 

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.

Okay, we agree on these points, however, how is this representative of their "already actively taking advantage of our distraction?" What exactly are they doing?

 

You know, this is a thread about Iran, so if you could root your response to their specific impact, that would help.

 

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?

Duh... erm... uggg... Like, what's a missile?

 

You are trying to counter my points by implying I'm not aware of the facts and that I don't pay attention to current events. Not only is this against the forum rules which you seem to hold in such high regard (and which you use as justification to delete my posts in response to you), but frankly it's rather insulting. That aside...

 

Please clarify then how Putin's rhetoric attempting to block the missile defense shield have anything to do with our "distraction" on issues like Iran. Are you essentially saying that the actions of Iran are specifically to distract the US enough so Russia and China can conduct operations outside of our aweraness? That's pretty bold if this is, in fact, what you're saying.

 

 

Then you agree?! So why all the demands for proof when I was merely expressing my concerns?

You were doing more than simply expressing concerns. You were stating issues as fact when in fact they are not, and then using those "facts" as the foundation of your comments. You've been arguing from a series of false premises, many of which I already pointed out in my previous post (as I've also done in other threads in which we've both participated).

 

 

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?

I'm not sure. Is this a strawman, an ad hom, or a non-sequitor?

 

 

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.

Okay. It has nothing to do with the current point. So why then did you bring it up in the first place and try to paint them so negatively?

 

 

Back to Iran, maybe we can direct this conversation toward what we should do and what might be some appropriate responses to the current issues and concerns we have over their actions. Many of us have expressed that there are problems that need to be addressed, so, let's work from that. Not many people are "blaming America first" or suggesting that the Iranian leadership are all "sunshine, flowers, and lollipops." I don't think anybody has done that, only been accused of doing that.

 

So, instead of threatening war and strikes, what else can be done? What else is being done? Who else in the world is attempting to improve matters with Iran, and how can we coordinate efforts with them? What is the end state we seek, and how does that impact the Iranian people and the region? How does achieving that end state impact us?

 

These are all questions that would be a quality use of our time. So, Pangloss, how about you stop focussing on our disagreement for a little while and making false points and posting aggressive rhetoric, and start talking about the issues at hand in way that suggests we may actually find a compromise and potential solution as a result? I recognize the tough part is agreeing on the solution. My hope is that force is the LAST resort.

[Dak]

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.

 

Well, my bad. i was sure i saw somewhere that at the very least russia supports iran's bid for nuclear weapons, but it seems they just oppose the use of military force to solve this -- they're still against iran owning nukes.

 

Still, my point still stands, just not against only the US -- fair one with, eg, germany not wanting iran to have nukes, 'cos iirc germany don't have any nukes -- but the us, uk, france, russia etc do. It does seem a tad hipocritical...

 

 

(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?!)

 

actually, I only said some of the eu were against it, tho it seems my info might be out of date (i know it used to be that the EU blocked the US's attempts to get the UN to take action).

 

irreguardless, the EU aren't clamoring to resort to military action, which makes me think something:

 

The EU are iran's largest trading partner. Iran have no debt, alot of trade with the EU, and so the US is relatively powerless to whallop it's economy -- it's the EU that can do that.

 

Mayhaps the US's threat of violence is more a threat against the EU -- empose proper, damaging sanctions on iran or we'll bomb them? I wouldn't be surprised if that worked.

[Pangloss]

Please clarify then how Putin's rhetoric attempting to block the missile defense shield have anything to do with our "distraction" on issues like Iran. Are you essentially saying that the actions of Iran are specifically to distract the US enough so Russia and China can conduct operations outside of our aweraness? That's pretty bold if this is, in fact, what you're saying.

 

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.

 

 

You were doing more than simply expressing concerns. You were stating issues as fact when in fact they are not, and then using those "facts" as the foundation of your comments. You've been arguing from a series of false premises, many of which I already pointed out in my previous post (as I've also done in other threads in which we've both participated).

 

No I wasn't. Examples:

 

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' date=' not just with Iran. It [b']seems[/b] 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.

 

Those are clearly statements of opinion, not statements of fact.

 

 

 

Well, my bad. i was sure i saw somewhere that at the very least russia supports iran's bid for nuclear weapons, but it seems they just oppose the use of military force to solve this -- they're still against iran owning nukes.

 

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.

 

 

Still, my point still stands, just not against only the US -- fair one with, eg, germany not wanting iran to have nukes, 'cos iirc germany don't have any nukes -- but the us, uk, france, russia etc do. It does seem a tad hipocritical...

 

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.

[Dak]

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 dunno... i'm still not convinced on this. iran would be absolutely foolish to launch nukes on anyone, given the ferocity of the responce that that'll illicit from foreighn powers, and the countries that they're most likely to want to nuke (israel and the US) have their own nukes, and so could retaliate. Letting them have nukes would probably not result in a nuclear holocoust. I think the main consern is probably iran making nuclear suitcase bombs and providing them to terrorists.

 

And it's still hypocritical to threaten to nuke a country to avoid a nuclear war I'd feel much better if the US would actually state that they wouldn't nuke iran even if they thought that they were making nukes.

[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.

[iNow]

No, I'm saying...

Okay. Fine.

 

No I wasn't.

Okay. Fine.

 

 

Those are clearly statements of opinion, not statements of fact.

Interesting how you left out my counter points of several other of your statements.

 

 

Whatever. You're clearly coming to this forum with your mind already made up, and you show no signs of a willingness to listen.

 

For others, I repeat the following:

 

 

So, instead of threatening war and strikes, what else can be done? What else is being done? Who else in the world is attempting to improve matters with Iran, and how can we coordinate efforts with them? What is the end state we seek, and how does that impact the Iranian people and the region? How does achieving that end state impact us?

[ParanoiA]

So, instead of threatening war and strikes, what else can be done? What else is being done? Who else in the world is attempting to improve matters with Iran, and how can we coordinate efforts with them? What is the end state we seek, and how does that impact the Iranian people and the region? How does achieving that end state impact us?

 

Why is it any of your business what Iran is doing? "What is the end state we seek"? At the risk of misinterpreting your Iranian citizenship status, where do you get the authority to ask that question?

 

You're asking about diplomatic solutions to military aggression. Iran wants nukes. They want it for offense, defense, the whole nine yards. Diplomacy is exactly what they want, because anything less than "muscle" can't stop them.

 

American policy has fueled this issue. Anti-american psyche continues to poison the issue and I believe it will cause folks to cut off their noses to spite their faces. There is an international push to stop Iran, but they all feel dirty since they're standing next to us...

[iNow]

Why is it any of your business what Iran is doing? "What is the end state we seek"? At the risk of misinterpreting your Iranian citizenship status, where do you get the authority to ask that question?

Then why all the hubbub? Why are we threatening to bomb or attack them if this is the case?

 

 

You're asking about diplomatic solutions to military aggression. Iran wants nukes. They want it for offense, defense, the whole nine yards. Diplomacy is exactly what they want, because anything less than "muscle" can't stop them.

I'm not sure if this helps or hurts my own position, but I do wish to challenge the "they want diplomacy" point above. If this were the case, then why would they have put Saeed Jalili in place of Iranian Chief Nuclear Negotiator, Ali Larijani who recently resigned?

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7050000/newsid_7054200/7054256.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1&ms3=54

[ParanoiA]

Then why all the hubbub? Why are we threatening to bomb or attack them if this is the case?

 

That's what I'm asking you. My countrymen are made up of interventionists. Why must anything be done about Iran? I don't support this mentallity and I'm wondering why you do.

[CDarwin]

Excellent article by (my hero) Fareed Zakaria in last week's Newsweek on the topic:

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346

[Pangloss]

I give Zacharia a lot of credit for being fair and objective, but I think he's bending over too far the other way in this case. I agree with the incorrectness of some of the rhetoric coming from the right, but that doesn't mean there's "no scintilla of evidence" that Iran is a danger to the region. And nobody ever said they were a direct military threat to the US, so he is exaggerating on that count.

[iNow]

That's what I'm asking you. My countrymen are made up of interventionists. Why must anything be done about Iran? I don't support this mentallity and I'm wondering why you do.

 

Are you asking why I think we should all work with nations which present threats to others in hopes of improving the world as a whole and moving forward as a global community? Or, do you have the impression that I'm on the "let's bomb the hell out of them" bandwagon, and you're wondering why?