Conservatives Beating War Drums on Foreign Policy (Formerly: A Nuclear Iran)

[CDarwin]

My father is a Bill O'Reilly fan and I'm occasionally subjected to moments of his nightly monument to himself as I transit from the computer room to other parts of the house. A night or two ago, he was hosting Dick Morris and I heard a snippet of the conversation that struck me. Dick Morris claimed that the only way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon was to change the regime (and criticized Obama for being naive for want to talk to them et cetera et cetera). Perhaps this my bias but that just rang in my ears like typical neoconservative tripe.

 

It's Dr. Evil reasoning. Ahmedinijad is a dictator/religious zealot, dictators/religious zealots naturally want super-powerful weapons to use against Good and Truth, thus no dictator = no nukes. Simple! But the significant majority of nuclear weapons are in the hands of Western democracies, so obviously Commies and nutjobs aren't the only ones who love their big red buttons.

 

If you look at the world from Iran's perspective for a moment, you can see why it might have some of the same reasons for wanting a nuclear weapon as France. It borders one nuclear power, is in close proximity to two more, is surrounded on two other borders by countries occupied by the world's second largest nuclear power which is also openly hostile toward it, and shares the Middle East with yet another nuclear power even more hostile toward it. Historically this is exactly why countries get nuclear weapons: Because they're afraid of other nations with nuclear weapons. Compound this with staunch nationalism and notions of ancient grandeur and you should have every expectation that a country like Iran would seek to put itself on par with its neighbors.

 

A nuclear Iran seems pretty much inevitable to me. The only thing we can hope to affect is the political climate in the country once it develops it's bomb. But what do you think?

 

EDIT: Sorry the poll is so limited, I was rushed. In fact, just ignore it. It's not really relevant. Where I had in my head I was going with this never quite materialized.

[Saryctos]

It's not that I'm afraid Iran will use a nuclear bomb. Few people in the world are capable of being that ballsy, or that crazy. The question is what will they do once they have nuclear deterrence?

[CDarwin]

It's not that I'm afraid Iran will use a nuclear bomb. Few people in the world are capable of being that ballsy, or that crazy. The question is what will they do once they have nuclear deterrence?

 

Right, right. And that's what's going to depend on the internal political climate in Iran.

[Pangloss]

I think fears of neoconservatism and resentment over American unilateralism have lead to a strange disbelief in the possibility of aggressive regimes elsewhere in the world. This strange sort of it-must-be-black-or-white worldview has produced an odd desire for peace, not believing there will be any cost, ignoring the factors that produce these regimes in the first place, which have not changed and/or have gotten worse because of our unilateralism and lack of international cooperation.

 

This is a baldly aggressive, self-statedly antagonistic regime, and while I don't advocate attacking it, I do advocate the entire world coming together to bring about Iranian regime-change. Even if we go on the odd assumption that Iran's religious leadership would never attack Israel with nukes (even though that's their stated religious goal), it seems additionally odd to assume that they would never provide nukes to terrorists working under cover.

[CDarwin]

I think fears of neoconservatism and resentment over American unilateralism have lead to a strange disbelief in the possibility of aggressive regimes elsewhere in the world. This strange sort of it-must-be-black-or-white worldview has produced an odd desire for peace, not believing there will be any cost, ignoring the factors that produce these regimes in the first place, which have not changed and/or have gotten worse because of our unilateralism and lack of international cooperation.

 

Invasion and forced regime change is certainly one way to change the internal political climate in Iran. It may have other negative consequences that would make it undesirable but that's another issue that I'm not seeking to debate here. My point is that A) the neoconservative view of Iranian nuclear ambitions based on ideology is inadequate because it ignores all its other much more potent security and nationalistic motives and B) US policy should perhaps be more focused on encouraging an Iran which won't use nuclear weapons than on preventing an Iran which has nuclear weapons.

 

You seem to leap ahead of my logic sometimes and assume a raving liberal undertone where there needn't be one.

 

This is a baldly aggressive, self-statedly antagonistic regime, and while I don't advocate attacking it, I do advocate the entire world coming together to bring about Iranian regime-change.

 

Well who wouldn't support that? Reform at least. Although one wonders how aggressive this regime really is when the one war they've fought was started by another actor and led to no territorial gains. The most bona-fide aggressive regime in the Middle East in terms of territory conquered is probably the one that already has nuclear capability (Israel).

 

Even if we go on the odd assumption that Iran's religious leadership would never attack Israel with nukes (even though that's their stated religious goal), it seems additionally odd to assume that they would never provide nukes to terrorists working under cover.[/Quote]

 

I will have to argue with this. How many statements can I dig up by Pakistani leaders threatening India? How many with Indians threatening Pakistan? The Soviet Union existed to bring about the overthrow of all capitalist societies and the creation of a world Communist order. Why didn't they attack ever attack the US with nukes or pass them off to terrorists? I'm sure the Sandinista could have used a hydrogen bomb. What about North Korea?

 

There's very good reason to suspect that Iran wouldn't risk chucking in the trash bin its nuclear deterrence by blasting away Israel with no provocation or handing off some it its finite supply of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups with uncertain loyalties.

[ParanoiA]

My two cents...the only way to be non-interventionist about Iran is to follow through with an essential complete withdraw from the middle east. Maintaining the status quo, while trying to demonstrate good will by not interfering with their acquisition of nukes is definitely asking for terrorism of a whole new order.

 

If you're dead set on maintaining a military presence in the middle east then they will remain our enemy and we'd better interfere with any more of them getting nukes.

 

If you don't want to interfere with Iran, then you're going to have to prove we're not their enemy. This is the choice I would make, obviously. I think that means removing our military hold on the region, to remove the incentive for easy terror recruitment.

[CDarwin]

If you don't want to interfere with Iran, then you're going to have to prove we're not their enemy. This is the choice I would make, obviously. I think that means removing our military hold on the region, to remove the incentive for easy terror recruitment.

 

Or just opening up. If we don't act like we're the enemy of Iran then that's literally half the battle. Invite Iranian students to US universities. Stop treating the Iranian government like a bunch of spoiled children (even if they act like it). That just spits in the face of the Iranian people. Strengthen trade ties and investment, even. There are reformist elements in Iran that we can work with if we show some good will, but we've got a lot of time to make up that was lost by the needless rhetorical excesses of the past few years. There's a place for principled stands and there's a place for actually working to achieve something.

 

That said, I would agree that US military presence in the Middle East could probably be brought down. It would have to be a case-by-case thing. If withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia would cause it to collapse that's certainly not worth it just to improve relations with Iran. I think Israel's a bigger long-term issue anyway. There's not going to be an ideal situation in the Middle East until that mess is 'settled,' whatever that will mean.

[Pangloss]

Invasion and forced regime change is certainly one way to change the internal political climate in Iran. It may have other negative consequences that would make it undesirable but that's another issue that I'm not seeking to debate here. My point is that A) the neoconservative view of Iranian nuclear ambitions based on ideology is inadequate because it ignores all its other much more potent security and nationalistic motives and B) US policy should perhaps be more focused on encouraging an Iran which won't use nuclear weapons than on preventing an Iran which has nuclear weapons.

 

You seem to leap ahead of my logic sometimes and assume a raving liberal undertone where there needn't be one.

 

I don't think you're a raving liberal and I don't support invasion. But I do have to point out that you started a thread on Iran's nuclear intentions and proceeded, in the very first sentence, to launch into an attack on hawkish neo-cons. What does the idiocy of neo-conservatives have to do with achieving an accurate and objective assessment of Iran's intentions? Nothing, so far as I can tell. Yet here you are, seemingly saying that we need have no fear of Iraq *because* neo-cons are the ones telling us to be afraid. Do you want to rant about neo-cons, or do you want you talk about Iran? Because you'll have to go a very long way to convince me that I shouldn't be worried about Iran just because Bush is worried about Iran.

 

I don't think that's your position, either, I think you just wanted to slam neo-cons as a thread-starter. Which is fine, but it opens the door for a response like the one I posted.

 

 

I will have to argue with this. How many statements can I dig up by Pakistani leaders threatening India?

 

Iran is not Pakistan. Iran is controlled by religious zealots. Pakistan is not -- in fact it's struggling mightily to avoid that very outcome, and one of the main reasons the international community supports the effort to keep Pakistan out of the hands of extremists is because it has the bomb.

 

I'm not stating that Iran would definitely drop the bomb, I'm saying that it's reasonable and appropriate for the international community to deny it the opportunity to do so.

[bascule]

I've been freaked out about a nuclear Iran forever. I even beat the drum of war with Iran, but that was sort of in juxtaposition to Iraq circa 2003. That's because Iran had a bona fide nuclear program, and Iraq didn't have jack.

 

A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, stole uranium centrifuge technologies from Europe and sold them to Iran and North Korea. Iran then began building centrifuges according to those designs, and using them to enrich uranium. They also adapted North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile technologies, in the form of the Shahab-6, an multi-stage ICBM capable of reaching sites in Europe.

 

That said, I was worried for awhile, a long wile... a span of, well about 5 years. I'm a strong advocate of nuclear disarmament, and certainly don't want any country with any sort of fanatical aspirations obtaining nuclear weapons.

 

Lately, my fears have waned. It seems like much ado about nothing. I am no longer afraid, nor do I believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

[CDarwin]

I don't think you're a raving liberal and I don't support invasion. But I do have to point out that you started a thread on Iran's nuclear intentions and proceeded, in the very first sentence, to launch into an attack on hawkish neo-cons. What does the idiocy of neo-conservatives have to do with achieving an accurate and objective assessment of Iran's intentions? Nothing, so far as I can tell.

 

I disagree with the neoconservative take on Iran and the view on policy neoconservative philosophy is fostering... Am I not allowed to do that? Neoconservativism isn't some abstract label for "hawks." Its a specific way of looking at international relations, one that has been historically influential on the current generation of policy makers, that I find wanting in the case of Iran.

 

Yet here you are, seemingly saying that we need have no fear of Iraq *because* neo-cons are the ones telling us to be afraid. Do you want to rant about neo-cons, or do you want you talk about Iran? Because you'll have to go a very long way to convince me that I shouldn't be worried about Iran just because Bush is worried about Iran.

 

No, I'm saying that we shouldn't be as focused on keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon as on fostering an Iran which wouldn't feel the need to act irresponsibly with it since a nuclear Iran is more-or-less inevitable. If stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is your paramount policy goal, then there's not much choice but a war and the sooner the better. That's my point.

 

Iran is not Pakistan. Iran is controlled by religious zealots. Pakistan is not -- in fact it's struggling mightily to avoid that very outcome, and one of the main reasons the international community supports the effort to keep Pakistan out of the hands of extremists is because it has the bomb.

 

The US wasn't controlled by religious zealots when it dropped the bomb either. And again I have to point to North Korea. If any country is run by zealots, it's that one. Yet Seoul and Tokyo remain in tact. In the modern geopolitical environment, the question isn't "do I really want to use this nuclear weapon." It's "do I want to commit suicide today" because both the Pakistanis and North Koreans now and the Iranians in the future would know that any use of nuclear weapons on their part would mean their pretty quick destruction. The US wouldn't even have to use nuclear weapons on Iran to completely obliterate its army.

 

I'm not stating that Iran would definitely drop the bomb, I'm saying that it's reasonable and appropriate for the international community to deny it the opportunity to do so.

 

But how do you do that without a war?

[Saryctos]

The US wasn't controlled by religious zealots when it dropped the bomb either. And again I have to point to North Korea. If any country is run by zealots, it's that one. Yet Seoul and Tokyo remain in tact. In the modern geopolitical environment, the question isn't "do I really want to use this nuclear weapon." It's "do I want to commit suicide today"

Do you forget the fountain of blood dedicated to the martyrs of the Iranian army? Suicide ain't so bad it seems...

 

But how do you do that without a war?

Just destroy it. Don't give them a chance to strike back. You'd have to do this after engaging in talks, so you could make it seem as though you really wanted to talk about it. Then plea to the UN that you want a peaceful resolution to the dispute, and if Iran still wants to do something about it they'd be on the wrong side of the UN as an aggressor. Now that's just my crappy little scenario, I imagine that there are people payed to come up with ideas like this, but more on the side of actually working. I'm sure they can think up something better.

[CDarwin]

Just destroy it. Don't give them a chance to strike back. You'd have to do this after engaging in talks, so you could make it seem as though you really wanted to talk about it. Then plea to the UN that you want a peaceful resolution to the dispute, and if Iran still wants to do something about it they'd be on the wrong side of the UN as an aggressor. Now that's just my crappy little scenario, I imagine that there are people payed to come up with ideas like this, but more on the side of actually working. I'm sure they can think up something better.

 

Then they'd rebuild it and be a lot more pissed off the next time and with a population lit on fire by nationalism. Honestly I think striking at Iran's nuclear facilities alone might be the worst of all options. If that's what you mean by "it."

[Rev Blair]

First of all, Iran's leaders are a lot of things, but they aren't stupid.

 

They know if they were to use nukes other than in self defense (and likely even then) their country would be a smoking hole in the ground before they could ask Allah to kiss their asses goodbye.

 

Second of all, they are no more or less entitled to nuclear technology than the US, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, France, England, both Koreas and whoever else is in the club.

 

George Bush isn't any more sane, or any less prone to blowing things up because of bizarre religious beliefs, than the Ayotollahs are.

 

Third of all, we in the west have supplied nuclear technology to Iran's enemies. Why should they be prohibited from participating in the regional arms race?

 

I have a heavy belief in detente, not having been blown to a radioactive crisp in my forty-odd years. I don't like it much...I'd prefer to put all these old bastards who run stuff into a cage with a pack of rabid werewolves during a full moon...but I do have to admit that I'm not dead.

[CDarwin]

I meant to post this a while ago, but I forgot and then I was busy and blahdeblah. Basically, while the media was watching Bill Clinton get red in the face and harping on flag pins and crazy ministers, John McCain was talking about rebooting the Cold War (exaggeration, but not by much). Fareed Zakaria wrote a good column about it in the Newsweek:

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134317

 

To quote:

 

What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow).

 

Responses? Reflections? I was on a bus coming back from Nashville when McCain's referenced speech was on and the troglodytes who were my fellow passengers insisted on watching SportsCenter so I didn't get to see it. I'm going to watch it on YouTube now.

 

Here's one blog critical of the article: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/04/us_foreign_policy_in_the_post-bush_era/

I'm not quite sure where the author gets his bit about Russia being "let into" the G8 because they couldn't get Yeltsin to go away. From what I could find, Russian officials were invited to come to the 1994 summit and it was officially brought in as a Clinton initiative.

[ecoli]

It's part of a general neo-con attitude about being 'above' the Muslim world, morally and socially. We hated communism, but we were able to talk to our Russian 'enemies.' Why... is it because they had just as many nukes as us, or is because they had white skin?

[ecoli]

Equal access to coercive threat ensures social cooperation. I don't want us to dominate Iran anymore than I want iran to dominate us.

[Pangloss]

Lately, my fears have waned. It seems like much ado about nothing. I am no longer afraid, nor do I believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

 

Why?

 

 

No' date=' I'm saying that we shouldn't be as focused on keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon as on fostering an Iran which wouldn't feel the need to act irresponsibly with it since a nuclear Iran is more-or-less inevitable. If stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is your paramount policy goal, then there's not much choice but a war and the sooner the better. That's my point.

[/quote']

 

That's fine, but that makes the subject of this thread "Why We Shouldn't Be Afraid of Iran Just Because Neoconservatives Say So", not Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because neocons are idiots doesn't mean a nuclear Iran isn't a problem.

 

 

The US wasn't controlled by religious zealots when it dropped the bomb either.

 

No, but it was under attack, which Iran is not. That is, of course, Iran's position -- that it's been attacked in the past and wants these weapons to defend itself should it be attacked again. Such as, perhaps, by Israeli ground attack aircraft? There are no rules for nuclear engagement, you know. But I don't think they'll need an excuse, they'll just do it and see what happens. Why not? Despots don't care what happens to their own people, they're only concerned about their own survival.

 

 

And again I have to point to North Korea. If any country is run by zealots, it's that one. Yet Seoul and Tokyo remain in tact.

 

You're reading that situation wrong. North Korea doesn't want to destroy South Korea, it wants to absorb it and utilize its brilliant economy. North Korea hasn't nuked anybody because it doesn't have a useful strategic target it can reach. Yet. Iran, on the other hand, comes with one ready-made, and right near by.

 

But North Korean IS trying to give terrorists the bomb, and we know this because it's trying to assist Syria and Iran in their efforts to acquire weapons. And if you don't think a Syrian bomb is a problem then you really have let your anti-neocon bias interfere with basic reasoning.

 

In the modern geopolitical environment, the question isn't "do I really want to use this nuclear weapon." It's "do I want to commit suicide today" because both the Pakistanis and North Koreans now and the Iranians in the future would know that any use of nuclear weapons on their part would mean their pretty quick destruction. The US wouldn't even have to use nuclear weapons on Iran to completely obliterate its army.

 

It's interesting that you deny the use of one set of assumptions while being perfectly ok with a different set of assumptions. I respect your opinion but I guess I have a hard time going along with the idea of just sitting back and letting anybody and their mother have atomic weaponry just because it's easier and we think we'll be okay if they get them.

 

 

But how do you do that without a war?

 

We've been doing exactly that for 50+ years and it's worked out pretty well so far. We just have to work a bit harder as the technology improves.

 

First of all, Iran's leaders are a lot of things, but they aren't stupid.

 

They know if they were to use nukes other than in self defense (and likely even then) their country would be a smoking hole in the ground before they could ask Allah to kiss their asses goodbye.

 

Second of all, they are no more or less entitled to nuclear technology than the US, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, France, England, both Koreas and whoever else is in the club.

 

George Bush isn't any more sane, or any less prone to blowing things up because of bizarre religious beliefs, than the Ayotollahs are.

 

Third of all, we in the west have supplied nuclear technology to Iran's enemies. Why should they be prohibited from participating in the regional arms race?

 

I have a heavy belief in detente, not having been blown to a radioactive crisp in my forty-odd years. I don't like it much...I'd prefer to put all these old bastards who run stuff into a cage with a pack of rabid werewolves during a full moon...but I do have to admit that I'm not dead.

 

This is just another post saying we shouldn't be afraid of Iran because Bush says we should be afraid of Iran.

 

I really don't understand that logic at all.

[Pangloss]

It's part of a general neo-con attitude about being 'above' the Muslim world, morally and socially. We hated communism, but we were able to talk to our Russian 'enemies.' Why... is it because they had just as many nukes as us, or is because they had white skin?

 

So John McCain is a racist now? Wow. McCain plays to the base a little and suddenly the US going to hell and the rest of the world is all happy-happy/joy-joy. Amazing.

 

 

(I've merged these two threads and given it a more appropriate name. I can change the name to something else if you wish, CDarwin, but it will need to accurately reflect the subject and not mislead people about its true subject. Thanks.)

[john5746]

It's part of a general neo-con attitude about being 'above' the Muslim world, morally and socially. We hated communism, but we were able to talk to our Russian 'enemies.' Why... is it because they had just as many nukes as us, or is because they had white skin?

 

We had to deal with the Russians, they were as strong as we were. Similar to trading with China but not Cuba. There is more fear of extreme Islam, because it suggests the leaders(or some terrorist band) may be willing to do something irrational, but Iran wasn't as careless as Saddam and seems to be more caring about their populace than the rodent in N. Korea.

[tvp45]

Before invading any more countries, we should perhaps listen to the "ass in the grass" guys about available force strength.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/moaa/mo0108/

[CDarwin]

That's fine, but that makes the subject of this thread "Why We Shouldn't Be Afraid of Iran Just Because Neoconservatives Say So", not Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because neocons are idiots doesn't mean a nuclear Iran isn't a problem.

 

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Or rather where you're getting what you're trying to say.

 

But North Korean IS trying to give terrorists the bomb, and we know this because it's trying to assist Syria and Iran in their efforts to acquire weapons. And if you don't think a Syrian bomb is a problem then you really have let your anti-neocon bias interfere with basic reasoning.

 

There's circular reasoning if I've ever seen it. "Iran might give nukes to terrorists because North Korea has given nukes to Iran and Syria and they might give nukes to terrorists." I know you were saying that North Korea is proliferatory too, but it just stuck me funny.

 

It's interesting that you deny the use of one set of assumptions while being perfectly ok with a different set of assumptions. I respect your opinion but I guess I have a hard time going along with the idea of just sitting back and letting anybody and their mother have atomic weaponry just because it's easier and we think we'll be okay if they get them.

 

I've never said Iran being nuclear was a good thing. I want fewer countries to be nuclear. I just don't know where the policy of "no nuclear weapons for Iran deuce all else" can lead but war. Maybe that's where the US has to go.

 

We've been doing exactly that for 50+ years and it's worked out pretty well so far. We just have to work a bit harder as the technology improves.

 

The world was a very different place 50+ years ago. You can't think that Cold War policy with countries like Iran is current or effective any more. Nuclear proliferation isn't a matter of grand geopolitical goals anymore. Its much more decentralized and easier. It wasn't difficult (and didn't involve dealing with Iran at all) to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons when they had no where to get them from (the Soviet Union hated them as much as we did) and were busy with a war with Iraq anyway. Those conditions don't exist anymore. For the first time, any way you look at, the solution to this crisis is going to have to directly involve Iran.

 

I really don't understand that logic at all.

 

We seem to be in a mutual position.

 

(I've merged these two threads and given it a more appropriate name. I can change the name to something else if you wish, CDarwin, but it will need to accurately reflect the subject and not mislead people about its true subject. Thanks.)

 

Well, it's fine. My mental intent didn't link the two as any sort of political commentary but if that's how it came out.

 

I don't really think McCain is beating in war drums, either, by the way. He's being an idealist which has a history (and a place) in American foreign policy. Here, though, he's going to end up offending newly proud countries that we need to work with us, and that hurts a lot of the America's other idealist goals.

[Rev Blair]

This is just another post saying we shouldn't be afraid of Iran because Bush says we should be afraid of Iran

 

No, it's not. It's a post saying very clearly that mutually assured destruction tends to keep people from nuking each other.

 

It doesn't really matter what George Bush says...he's a failed president, the most disliked in US history. He was an idiot before he got elected, and he hasn't gotten any smarter since. He's a religious fanatic who believes some bizarre things. He's a war monger who believes you can solve complex problems with bombs. He's a lot like the leaders of Iran, but not as smart.

 

All that and he never used his vast arsenal of nukes in his war for the oil companies. Why? Because he's not the only one who has them and to do so would have risked retaliation from Russia and China, who also want control of oil.

 

It's kind of crude and stupid, but detente works. Before Gorbachev came to power in the USSR, the common thinking was that we'd all be living in holes sooner or later. Leaders of nuclear powers recognized that even if their side won, they would lose though, so they sat down and talked instead.

 

Oh, they fought their dirty little proxy wars and suffered delusions of adequacy, but they never used their nukes and actually signed treaties to reduce their arsenals.

 

I really don't see the problem with Iran joining that little club. They aren't going to nuke Israel. They aren't going to nuke occupied Iraq. They aren't going to nuke India. To do so would bring nukes down on them.

[ParanoiA]

I have a question: Has any other region in the history of the world produced and celebrated more suicide-murderers than the middle east? Even close?

 

While I don't support military intervention to stop Iran from getting nukes, doesn't the issue of fanatic religious infatuation with suicide bombing, self sacrifice and martyrdom cross anyone's mind?

 

I think many of us in here have equated theism and religion with delusion, compared them to belief in "purple unicorns", or "sasquatch" - delerious fairy tales of the weak minded and intellectually defficient. Yet, suddenly, when it's the middle east and not the US, we're all comfy with the notion.

 

I smell a double standard.

 

I've never even heard Bush say the word "god" or "jesus", after listening to many speeches over the past 8 years, much less pimp religion onto the masses in any fraction that resembles the intensity and unification of religion and government in the middle east.

 

Sorry, Rev, but I'm not buying it. All of Bush's policies and positions, most of which I can't stand, are consistent with traditional american culture, which cannot escape itself from the influence of the christian culture - even for non-christians. It's all history. There's nothing religiously fanatic about Bush in the least.

 

Which is actually the scary part...

[abskebabs]

I have a question: Has any other region in the history of the world produced and celebrated more suicide-murderers than the middle east? Even close?

Perhaps not in raw numbers but I think per capita, maybe the Tamil tigers have made more and been more effective with the techinique of suicide bombers. Also many of their bombers are women, one even managed to kill the Prime minister of India in the 80s! Though I guess they are not a government, and not sponsored by any government in the world.

 

and not sponsored by any government in the world.

 

I take that back, if I can count the following BBC article credibly, then the following quote damns my country of birth as a culprit. must say, I'm dissapointed:

"Different Indian administrations have been responsible for training and arming the Tamil rebels in the past in different parts of the sub-continent."

The article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/526407.stm

 

I think also perhaps people are still not seeing Ahmadinejad for what he is. He's a clown of a politician, struggling with bad political opinion of him back home, though sympathised by some arabs foreign to his country(not sure how much that's changed with the recent debacle in lebanon). I think his tactic, and the Iranian regime's of having the Big Satan of America works in their favour to a large extent, to keep power. It's strange in a way, it's like the tactics of both sides mirror themselves.

 

I do think the regime of Iran is despicable, much like China's or Russia's, but just because their a state sponsor of terror doesn't mean their stupid enough to hand nuclear weapons to terrorists. Many countries around the world are, or have been state sponsors of Terror. This includes the US, and their good buddies the Saudi Arabians(no offense to you guys). That's my view anyway.

[Pangloss]

But North Korean IS trying to give terrorists the bomb, and we know this because it's trying to assist Syria and Iran in their efforts to acquire weapons. And if you don't think a Syrian bomb is a problem then you really have let your anti-neocon bias interfere with basic reasoning.

There's circular reasoning if I've ever seen it. "Iran might give nukes to terrorists because North Korea has given nukes to Iran and Syria and they might give nukes to terrorists." I know you were saying that North Korea is proliferatory too, but it just stuck me funny.

 

That's just spin, not an honest reply. You'd let Iran have nukes, fine, but I can think of at least one political group you wouldn't allow to have nuclear weapons if you could help it: neo-cons!

 

If you feel that the world should have no concerns whatsoever about which countries get nuclear weapons, more power to you. I feel otherwise, and I've expressed why other countries feel the same way. It is not "circular reasoning", it's honest concern.

 

And you're still not talking about Iran, here, you're just bashing the right.

 

 

I've never said Iran being nuclear was a good thing.

 

(Wouldn't that make you guilty of "circular reasoning" too? Like I said, that wasn't an honest reply.)

 

At any rate, I understand your position, you think our behavior is "half the problem". Which is why this thread isn't about Iran, it's about bashing the right. I got it. No worries, I've already adjusted the subject line accordingly. Bash away.