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

[Pangloss]

Oh, is that what "it's best" to do? Make a judgement about a man's overall intelligence based on 10-second sound bites and policies that you're (by your own admission) predisposed to disagree with, and then declare far and wide that his idiocy is objectively valid, and should be the reason why people oppose his policies, even though you can't produce a shred of evidence to that effect, or even respond to my point that he has a Harvard MBA.

 

I see. Opinion, then, not fact. Got it.

 

Well I know what that is, it's just Clinton-hatred redux. You're just doing the same thing the conservatives did, finding every nuance in his behavior to be anathema. You should be more careful what you wish for, because you should already know that it's going to happen all over again with the next President. That sort of thing is perpetuating what's wrong with this country, not helping it.

 

And that is MY opinion.

[Rev Blair]

I disagreed with most of Bush's father's policies too. I never thought George Sr. was an idiot though. I think he was crooked and locked Manny Noriega up to keep us from finding out how crooked, but I don't think he was stupid.

 

Same with Clinton. I criticized him extensively during his time in office, especially over Rwanda, but it was always clear to me that he wasn't an idiot in spite of his stupid mistakes.

 

I do think Reagan was an exceptionally stupid man, but he was, at least, smart enough to fool enough people that there isn't a line of people waiting waiting to piss on his grave.

 

I don't agree with hardly anything McCain says. I think he's misguided, weak, and so wrong that it's likely a deep evolutionary trait going back to when mammals hadn't figured out how to grow hair, but I don't think he's an idiot.

 

I think Nixon was one of the smartest politicians you ever had, although he got caught because of hubris, and I also think that not dragging him to the witness stand in handcuffs was one of the biggest mistakes your country has made in my lifetime.

 

I do think that Gerald Ford would have been far better off if, to paraphrase McLean and McLean, somebody would have slipped a vagina over his head and fornicated some sense into him. I don't think he was an idiot though.

 

I think Carter was smarter than most, and likely the best at foreign policy since Kennedy. He sucked at domestic policy though, and his religious leanings are likely part of the reason that the scourge of fundamentalism is now tainting both your political system and mine. Now he appears to be losing it a bit...well, more than a bit. You can't go stumbling around giving out other people's state secrets if you want to be a statesman, after all, even if you are right.

 

That pretty much covers my lifetime...I was four when LBJ left office.

 

Would you like a rundown of my opinion of Canadian political leaders next, or are you still busy convincing yourself that I just assume anybody I don't agree with is stupid?

[ParanoiA]

Rev, I love your wisdom, your attitude and your intellect. You have a knack for humor and a talent for flare in your overgeneralizations, but you can't really believe the literal interpretation of your words...do you?

 

An idiot? About half the country is completely in line with that idiot and their senselessness is arguable, but not fact. These are the american citizens; people that build space shuttles and study stem cells. It's opinion dude, just accept it. It's also a rhetorical oversimplification that ought to humble your indictment of the neocons for the same thing. Pangloss called you out on it. Sounds fair to me.

 

His policy decisions are bizarre and his explanations for them often nonsensical. Again, that's being stupid.

 

Could hardly argue with being nonsensical, but that's an ideological thing. There's nothing "proven" about Bush and his advisors and about half the population of the united states' point of view. Some of their views have merit, and some of their concerns are legitimate. A great many are oppressive, imperialistic, non-secular, invasive, contrary to many of the principles we're supposed to be willing to die for. PNAC is not made up of idiots and all of Bush's foreign policies can be found there.

 

He refuses to listen to smart people who are specialists in the areas they are advising him on. That's also being stupid.

 

An example of this? I thought he had a circle of smart dudes. My money's on the "one smart guy was over-ruled by other smart guys, so pissed him off" routine. But I'll proudly admit that's a presumptuous prediction on my part.

 

He has waged a virtual war on science since coming to office. That's stupid too.

 

This could actually be your best ground for evidence. But to be an "idiot", you need more than just Creationism evangelism, and making speaking mistakes.

 

It's good rhetoric, but that's what it is. You're oversimplifying, and consequentially underestimating the neocon, religious right.

 

Don't get me wrong. I have just as much fun calling Bush an idiot as the next guy, it's a nice way to sum up my opinion on the whole mess of his administration, but I'm sure he's a pretty smart dude in person. The whole "stupid" persona, I think, comes from his awkward performance in front of a large audience.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This could actually be your best ground for evidence. But to be an "idiot", you need more than just Creationism evangelism, and making speaking mistakes.

I highly recommend the book Corrupted Science, by John Grant, on this topic. Especially chapter 6(iii):

 

It was very depressing to realize that, when looking around for regimes that have systematically corrupted science within the past century or so, three stood out quite distinctly, head and shoulders above the rest of the herd: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Bush's America. At times when working on the three relevant chapters I had to remind myself which chapter was the one in front of me: the parallels between the three regimes, in terms of their vigorous attempts to trample honest science underfoot, are as horrifically close as that.

 

The book is very well referenced and very well researched.

[iNow]

For one, the world is nuclear today, for another, Germany was a state more powerful or on par with the Allies, and for a third, the Allies had a reason to want a strong anti-Communist Germany as a bulwark against Bolshevism and the Soviet Union.

 

For fourth... There are a great many amazing people in Iran who should not be made to suffer due to some idealogical propoganda used against a few of its leaders to bias the US populace toward allowing and supporting regime change.

 

If we try to control them and "boss" them into not having nukes, it will only strengthen their resolve to have them, ultimately making the problem worse instead of better.

 

 

It's a bit like those "Chinse finger traps." The harder you pull your fingers apart, the tighter it squeezes against them, and the less likely you will be to successfully remove your fingers from the trap.

 

I swear, sometimes it's like we're putting our hand on a hot burner and saying "OUCH, That hurt!!," but then we keep doing the same thing and expecting it not to hurt. One of these days, our hand is going to fall off.

[ParanoiA]

I highly recommend the book Corrupted Science, by John Grant, on this topic. Especially chapter 6(iii):

 

Noted.

[Reaper]

I don't know, I have to agree with Rev Blair on this one, with Bush being an idiot:

 

Main Entry: Stupid

 

 

1 a: slow of mind : obtuse b: given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c: lacking intelligence or reason : brutish

2: dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid <still stupid from the sedative>

3: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless <a stupid decision>

4 a: lacking interest or point <a stupid event> b: vexatious' date=' exasperating <the stupid car won't start>

[/quote']

 

Bush fits definitions 1b and 3. Whatever his true IQ may be is irrelevant.

[john5746]

Stupid is as stupid does.

[doG]

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.

 

Keep one thing in mind about the type of religious zealots in control of Iran. They are the kind that will patiently send their people to pilots schools for years to learn how to fly jumbo jets and then while the west has their guard down use those pilots, who know they are going to die, to fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers for no other reason than to kill infidels.

 

I think Islamic nations are just as entitled as we are to pursue nuclear deterrence but the current leaders of Iran are not trustworthy. For them the threat of their own annihilation is not a deterrent that will keep them from following their extreme beliefs. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated publicly and repeatedly that Israel must be wiped off the map. Do not underestimate his resolve to accomplish this.

[Pangloss]

What doG said.

 

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting op/ed about "talking to Iran" today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121193151568724469.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

 

Those who feel that the United States is just a big bully and the source of all the trouble here might wish to take note of the fact that we're not the only ones who have trouble communicating with Iran.

 

The Arabs, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have been negotiating with the mullahs for years – the Egyptians over restoring diplomatic ties cut off by Tehran, and the Saudis on measures to stop Shiite-Sunni killings in the Muslim world – with nothing to show for it. Since 1993, the Russians have tried to achieve agreement on the status of the Caspian Sea through talks with Tehran, again without results.

 

And it's not as if we haven't tried. We've been talking to them for 30 years. The problem isn't that we're not talking to them, it's that we're not telling them anything they want to hear. That's because what they want to hear isn't something we want to tell them. Something NONE of us should want to tell them.

 

The Islamic Republic might welcome unconditional talks, but only if the U.S. signals readiness for unconditional surrender. Talk about talking to Iran and engaging Mr. Ahmadinejad cannot hide the fact that, three decades after Khomeinist thugs raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, America does not understand what is really happening in Iran.

 

These things are always far more complicated than simple statements (like "Bush is just an idiot") can possibly hope to explain. That's the danger of partisanship, it gives easy answers when far more complex ones are not only more accurate, but are necessary, in order to solve the problem.

[Reaper]

These things are always far more complicated than simple statements (like "Bush is just an idiot") can possibly hope to explain....

 

 

True, but Bush being an idiot does play a big part in this, and he isn't getting any closer to improving relations, more like making them worse...

 

Keep one thing in mind about the type of religious zealots in control of Iran. They are the kind that will patiently send their people to pilots schools for years to learn how to fly jumbo jets and then while the west has their guard down use those pilots, who know they are going to die, to fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers for no other reason than to kill infidels.

 

Well, that was Al-Qaeda, from Saudi Arabia, not the Iranians. Keep in mind that the Sunni and Shite regimes are also enemies to each other; though they both hate the west that doesn't mean that they are allies. Iran, which is predominately Shia, is very unlikely to help Al Qaeda, and Hizbollah and Syria (Iran's allies) are much more focused on Israel then on the U.S. or Europe.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[doG]

Well, that was Al-Qaeda, from Saudi Arabia, not the Iranians.

 

Oh I realize that completely. That's why I said they are the type of religious zealots that would do that, not that they are the religious zealots that did that. My only point is that they will coldly and meticulously plan their wrath while smiling and being friendly with you. They are driven to act by their beliefs and those beliefs are full of hatred and intolerance.

[Rev Blair]

Rev, I love your wisdom, your attitude and your intellect. You have a knack for humor and a talent for flare in your overgeneralizations, but you can't really believe the literal interpretation of your words...do you?

 

I'm going to deal with this in a separate thread, because it'll take me way off-topic. I do think an explanation is in order though, because there seems to be a bit of an impasse.

 

An idiot? About half the country is completely in line with that idiot and their senselessness is arguable, but not fact. These are the american citizens; people that build space shuttles and study stem cells. It's opinion dude, just accept it. It's also a rhetorical oversimplification that ought to humble your indictment of the neocons for the same thing. Pangloss called you out on it. Sounds fair to me.

 

Of course it's opinion...this is politics, not physics. What Pangloss puts forward is just opinion too.

 

If you want to get indepth, we can do that. I don't do it for free though...it's part of how I make my living. It's still politics, and still just an opinion, but I can (and do) write articles, position papers, and analyses that have more words in the bibliography than in the article.

 

Could hardly argue with being nonsensical, but that's an ideological thing. There's nothing "proven" about Bush and his advisors and about half the population of the united states' point of view. Some of their views have merit, and some of their concerns are legitimate. A great many are oppressive, imperialistic, non-secular, invasive, contrary to many of the principles we're supposed to be willing to die for. PNAC is not made up of idiots and all of Bush's foreign policies can be found there.

 

It's not just an ideological thing though. Most of the best military advisors said that Bush needed a larger force in Iraq. The best science advisors said something should be done about global warming. It can go on indefinitely like that. Bush ignored, or actively tried to silence, the experts in favour of his own little group.

 

Look at the Nigerian Yellowcake and aluminum tubes. The international community was actively laughing at Bush's conclusions on those things because he cast aside the experts and chose to believe, and base policy on, things that had already been debunked.

 

An example of this? I thought he had a circle of smart dudes. My money's on the "one smart guy was over-ruled by other smart guys, so pissed him off" routine. But I'll proudly admit that's a presumptuous prediction on my part.

 

Nigerian yellowcake, aluminum tubes, WMDs in general, global warming, arsenic levels in well water, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, appointments to the UN, New Orleans. How many do you want? Bush doesn't listen to the smart dudes, he listens to the ideological dudes.

 

It's good rhetoric, but that's what it is. You're oversimplifying, and consequentially underestimating the neocon, religious right.

 

I don't underestimate them at all. I think they are at least as dangerous as Islamic extremists, albeit in a slightly different manner.

 

Perhaps I should make a post about how the religious right started taking over call in shows in the late seventies and early eighties, and how effectively they use the internet and talk radio to this day.

 

I also don't underestimate the neo-conservative movement and how successful and damaging Straussian theory has been to North American politics and democracy in general.

 

I do try to keep my posts relatively short though.

 

Don't get me wrong. I have just as much fun calling Bush an idiot as the next guy, it's a nice way to sum up my opinion on the whole mess of his administration, but I'm sure he's a pretty smart dude in person. The whole "stupid" persona, I think, comes from his awkward performance in front of a large audience.

Yesterday 08:40 PM

 

I don't see an awkward performance there though. I see a polished performance by a man who has little active intelligence.

 

I also doubt that he comes across as a smart dude in person. From what I've gathered from what international leaders and their people have said, he comes across as disinterested, unaware, overly aggressive, and inconsiderate.

 

Keep one thing in mind about the type of religious zealots in control of Iran. They are the kind that will patiently send their people to pilots schools for years to learn how to fly jumbo jets and then while the west has their guard down use those pilots, who know they are going to die, to fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers for no other reason than to kill infidels.

 

They don't fly those planes themselves though. That's important, because nukes put them at the level of having to risk their own lives. They aren't prone to doing that.

 

I think Islamic nations are just as entitled as we are to pursue nuclear deterrence but the current leaders of Iran are not trustworthy. For them the threat of their own annihilation is not a deterrent that will keep them from following their extreme beliefs. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated publicly and repeatedly that Israel must be wiped off the map. Do not underestimate his resolve to accomplish this.

 

Ahmadinejad is a coward who acts as a mouthpiece for other cowards. Put his ass on the line, and he'll back down. That's the way his bosses are too. They like to yammer about Israel, and if there were no consequences I have no doubt they'd act. There are consequences though, and they know it.

 

These are not men willing to give up their palaces and dancing girls for their beliefs. They'll give up somebody else's, but not their own.

 

Those who feel that the United States is just a big bully and the source of all the trouble here might wish to take note of the fact that we're not the only ones who have trouble communicating with Iran.

 

There are tensions between Arabs and Iranians that go back to before Mohammed. US influence in those countries has made that worse. So have religious differences.

 

And it's not as if we haven't tried. We've been talking to them for 30 years. The problem isn't that we're not talking to them, it's that we're not telling them anything they want to hear. That's because what they want to hear isn't something we want to tell them. Something NONE of us should want to tell them.

 

No, actually, you've been pointedly NOT talking to them for 30 years...unless you consider the Iran/Contra scandal talking. You've been not talking to them since you installed the Shah, which was your response to their finally rebelling against the British, who also wouldn't talk to them.

 

Winston Churchill said that "Jaw, jaw is always better than war, war." He didn't always follow his own advice, but maybe we should give it a shot.

[Pangloss]

I have no problem with any of that. It's just extremist rhetoric that bugs me, I don't want this site dragged down to the domain of MoveOn.org. I think you're right on target with 99% of that, and respect the other 1% as opinion.

 

I think that's a nice thread you started, by the way, taking the time to express yourself more fully and reasonably, and I'll do you the favor of leaving it alone lest I disturb its respectable, generally-positivist vibe.

[Reaper]

I have no problem with any of that. It's just extremist rhetoric that bugs me,

 

What extremist rhetoric?

[doG]

Ahmadinejad is a coward who acts as a mouthpiece for other cowards. Put his ass on the line, and he'll back down. That's the way his bosses are too. They like to yammer about Israel, and if there were no consequences I have no doubt they'd act. There are consequences though, and they know it.

 

These are not men willing to give up their palaces and dancing girls for their beliefs. They'll give up somebody else's, but not their own.

 

That's a nice opinion but here's the reality of the situation....

 

There's a thug in your neighborhood that wants a gun, a gun he claims is for defending his home. He's tried acquiring a gun from other members of the neighborhood but no one will sell one to him. That being the case he's decided that he'll just build his own.

 

You know from past experience that he will resort to violence to get what he wants because he's previously taken you and your family hostage in an effort to get what he wants. Now he's running around the neighborhood proclaiming that the man that lives in the corner house must be exterminated but still, you wish to grant him the benefit of a doubt. Why should any of us believe that he won't use his own gun to do just that once he gets it built?

 

Another way of looking at it is to consider it as a wager. Allowing a known rogue ideologist to acquire a nuclear weapon while taking no action to prevent it is essentially making a bet that he won't actually use it. Ask yourself, what could you gain by winning the bet versus what you risk if you lose the bet. What's at risk is the country of Israel and its people. What you could gain is nothing. With nothing to gain is the bet really worth it?

[ParanoiA]

Of course it's opinion...this is politics' date=' not physics. What Pangloss puts forward is just opinion too.

 

If you want to get indepth, we can do that. I don't do it for free though...it's part of how I make my living. It's still politics, and still just an opinion, but I can (and do) write articles, position papers, and analyses that have more words in the bibliography than in the article.[/quote']

 

Right, so that means your analysis of GWB is an oversimplified opinion (obviously or it would be a fact). Such oversimplifications like "We smart, He dumb" does not help and things will not go well with that approach.

 

Incidentally, if you're going to "charge" to support your arguments then you might consider not making them to begin with. I'm prepared to get into any point I make without a profit minder excuse. I thought all of us were.

 

It's not just an ideological thing though. Most of the best military advisors said that Bush needed a larger force in Iraq. The best science advisors said something should be done about global warming. It can go on indefinitely like that. Bush ignored' date=' or actively tried to silence, the experts in favour of his own little group.

 

Look at the Nigerian Yellowcake and aluminum tubes. The international community was actively laughing at Bush's conclusions on those things because he cast aside the experts and chose to believe, and base policy on, things that had already been debunked. [/quote']

 

There were just as many military advisors, including a certian secratary of defense, in his ear about a smaller force. There are always dissenters for any plan, and hindsight is always 20/20 so by your method we can make the case that every president, including Washington, was an idiot. I mean come on, Washington mistreated Arnold, a freaking war hero, and caused him to turn on his own country. What an idiot!!

 

Global warming is a huge political debate in this country, right or wrong, the people are split, so again, are you going to oversimplify and call half of us idiots?

 

I'm just making the point that Bush's decisions are shared. They aren't little ideas he dreamt up all by himself. They are shared and postulated by his own cabinet members. They are shared by his party legislators. They are shared by half of the population of america.

 

I don't underestimate them at all. I think they are at least as dangerous as Islamic extremists, albeit in a slightly different manner.

 

I think they're more dangerous. Because they're meticulous, they rely on religion, but their arguments work on secularists as well. They're incremental. They have a movement dedicated to interventionism and pages of rationale to support it. Democrats and Republicans both are signed on to the notion. And this is in the hands of the most powerful arsenol mankind has ever seen.

 

Perhaps I should make a post about how the religious right started taking over call in shows in the late seventies and early eighties, and how effectively they use the internet and talk radio to this day.

 

Only if it's free.

[Rev Blair]

Only if it's free.

 

Ah, there's the rub. Should I put as much effort into this as I put into my paid writing?

 

Right, so that means your analysis of GWB is an oversimplified opinion (obviously or it would be a fact). Such oversimplifications like "We smart, He dumb" does not help and things will not go well with that approach.

 

Incidentally, if you're going to "charge" to support your arguments then you might consider not making them to begin with. I'm prepared to get into any point I make without a profit minder excuse. I thought all of us were.

 

I'm not sure what you do for a living, Pangloss, but I am pretty sure that you don't do it for free in your spare time as well. You might talk about it with others, you might share some of your knowledge, but I doubt you actually sit down and do the work.

 

That brings us back to the reality of politics though. There are no hard facts. Sorry, but supplying links doesn't change that.

 

What we do know is that Bush's policies have failed in the past, and his policy towards Iran is based on the same kind of thinking that caused those other policies to fail.

 

We also know that Iran has reacted badly to foreign intervention and imperialism in the past. It is the one thing that brings disparate groups of Iranians together. If you doubt that, look into the cooperation between Khomeini and the democratic movement in ousting the Shah.

 

There were just as many military advisors, including a certian secratary of defense, in his ear about a smaller force. There are always dissenters for any plan, and hindsight is always 20/20 so by your method we can make the case that every president, including Washington, was an idiot.

 

The record speaks for itself though. If Bush was right part of the time and his dissenters part of the time, you'd have a point. The reality is that the dissenters have been right every time though, and Bush has been wrong.

 

More than that, Bush has gone against the advice of the international community as well. There are a lot of very intelligent people who specialize in these things, and the majority of them predicted what would happen if Bush carried out his policies.

 

Global warming is a huge political debate in this country, right or wrong, the people are split, so again, are you going to oversimplify and call half of us idiots?

 

Have I called anyone but George Bush an idiot?

 

As for global warming, there is a huge body of scientific evidence supporting it, and little or no valid evidence showing the theory to be incorrect.

 

The anti-AGW crowd is dominated by political and financial motivations. There are a few scientists, but most of them aren't publishing peer-reviewed papers on the subject. There has been more than a little dishonesty from the anti-AGW crowd as well...check out the reality of the Oregon Petition or pretty much anything Inhofe has said on the subject.

 

Anyway, I have to go see a man about a horse...literally...so I'll pick this up later.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not sure what you do for a living, Pangloss, but I am pretty sure that you don't do it for free in your spare time as well. You might talk about it with others, you might share some of your knowledge, but I doubt you actually sit down and do the work.

 

That wasn't Pangloss, that was me. And what I do for a living stays at work. I don't join phone repairmen clubs and make claims about how an ISDN PBX should send an NI2 local call to the central office and then refuse to back it up by saying I get paid to do that.

 

That brings us back to the reality of politics though. There are no hard facts. Sorry' date=' but supplying links doesn't change that.

 

What we do know is that Bush's policies have failed in the past, and his policy towards Iran is based on the same kind of thinking that caused those other policies to fail.

 

We also know that Iran has reacted badly to foreign intervention and imperialism in the past. It is the one thing that brings disparate groups of Iranians together. If you doubt that, look into the cooperation between Khomeini and the democratic movement in ousting the Shah.[/quote']

 

I agree with all of that.

 

The record speaks for itself though. If Bush was right part of the time and his dissenters part of the time' date=' you'd have a point. The reality is that the dissenters have been right every time though, and Bush has been wrong.

 

More than that, Bush has gone against the advice of the international community as well. There are a lot of very intelligent people who specialize in these things, and the majority of them predicted what would happen if Bush carried out his policies.[/quote']

 

Good point, I certainly agree for the most part. I think you're exaggerating a bit by saying he was wrong every time about every policy. Foreign policy, I'd have to agree. Domestic policy, not necessarily.

 

Have I called anyone but George Bush an idiot?

 

No, and that's my point. Most of his idiotic decisions are party positions. Look, I'm only being pedantic about it since you overgeneralized him in the same sentence you were criticizing him for overgeneralizing issues.

 

I regularly criticize both political parties as idiots. I characterize the american people as sheeple. Little rhetorical digs that emote my displeasure while supplying a "hint" of truth. But I don't do this while simultaneously criticizing someone else for doing it.

[Shashwat]

If because of the fear of other countries, new countries are getting nuclear.

According to me, that is wrong. But however, its difficult to give a concrete answer.

 

To bring peace to the world, someone would have to take the initiative.

I dont think Iran should become nuclear because surrounding have strong nuclear powers.

Someone would have to take a hard step towards non-nuclear weapon by not being nuclear no matter other possesses that power or not.

That is the teachings of Gandhiji: non-violence.

 

Sooner or later, that may tempt other nations to get deprived of their nuclear weapons bringing peace to the world.

This is the only way to do so.