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

[iNow]

No worries, I've already adjusted the subject line accordingly. Bash away.

 

I know you have the power to do this, but wouldn't the prudent action be to discuss this and gain agreement from the person who opened the thread before making any such change?

 

It just strikes me as incredibly rude, disrespectful, and self-righteous. Maybe you did PM CDarwin, and I'm just not privy to that communique?

[Pangloss]

It doesn't really matter what George Bush says...he's a failed president, the most disliked in US history.

 

Prove it. I think you'll find that the polls showed lower approval ratings for Nixon and Carter. Perhaps I'm wrong? Let's see your data.

 

 

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.

 

Your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But you've just underscored my point that that was an anti-bush reply, not an honest inquiry into the motivations and politics of Iran. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

 

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.

 

Fascinating. It's really odd to see an ABB thread promoting nuclear detente, of all things. But I guess the ABB crowd requires an ostensible explanation for supporting Iran, which Bush has spoken out against, and of course anything Bush speaks out against has to be supported, since that's what opposition means in this country these days.

 

Good luck with that.

 

I know you have the power to do this, but wouldn't the prudent action be to discuss this and gain agreement from the person who opened the thread before making any such change?

 

I told him he could select a different wording for the subject line if he wished.

[abskebabs]

Pangloss, to me Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plays the role of the public figurehead of the Iranian regime. My question to you is this: How accurately do you think the statements, including the controversial ones he has made reflect the goals and intentions in the near future of those more powerful in Iran, who actually control policy, basically the mullahs and the current Ayatollah?

 

I think if you want to accurately judge a threat based on the characters involved, these guys should be looked at much more closely.

[Pangloss]

I don't know how accurate they are. The default for should be "you don't get nukes", not "ok, you can have nukes, and we'll just assume you won't use them in spite of you saying that you intend to wipe Israel off the face of the map".

 

And CERTAINLY the default should not be "well Bush says he shouldn't have nukes, therefore it's probably safe to let him have them".

[abskebabs]

I don't know how accurate they are. The default for should be "you don't get nukes", not "ok, you can have nukes, and we'll just assume you won't use them in spite of you saying that you intend to wipe Israel off the face of the map".

I wasn't asking you what you know, indeed I would strongly doubt you actually know the intentions of the iranian regime, as I strongly presume you are not a part of it. I was asking how much you think Ahmadinejad's statements actually reflect the goals and intentions of the Iranian regime, or rather, to how large an extent he's "preaching" to the Arab world and his own populace.

 

The supreme leader of Iran, Khamenei, and other influential inividuals have often issued statements directly contradicting Ahmadinejad's, even directly after he has made his. I think it's important to realise that with that country your dealing with a wide political spectrum, much like the US, and I think the positions of the reformists have only been weakened by the antagonistic policies of the bush administration and the neocons.

 

Also, I think any other policy, that isn't this childish "we don't like them so we will cut off all diplomatic links and impose sanctions approach" would help the US settle this dispute in a far better fashion.

[Rev Blair]

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?

 

Oh, it's crossed my mind, but if you actually look at who the suicide bombers are, they aren't the ones running things. The suicide bombers are young, powerless people who get talked into things by their higher-ups. The Ayotollahs an Imams aren't going to risk their own asses, and starting a nuclear war does exactly that.

 

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.

 

It's not a double standard, it's acknowledging that there is little likely to change in the Middle East and that all nations have the same rights as all other nations.

 

You should keep in mind that while we worry about the US going backwards, Nations like Iran can't really get anymore backwards.

 

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.

 

Oh? How many times has he ended a speech with "God bless America?" Given his religious leanings and the influence of fundamentalists in the Republican Party, do you really think he's invoking the vague god of your deist founding fathers? I doubt it.

 

What about his propensity for mixing religion and politics? Faith-based programs for everything. Park guides offering creationism as an alternate "theory" for the formation of the Grand Canyon. Yeah, this is an administration that believes in the separation of church and state.

 

The man holds prayer meetings in the Oval Office when he should be working. He's been quoted as saying that he thinks god wants him to be president.

 

Prove it. I think you'll find that the polls showed lower approval ratings for Nixon and Carter. Perhaps I'm wrong? Let's see your data.

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/bush.poll/

 

Presidential historian Paul Kengor says he's not surprised by a new poll that suggests President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.

 

A new CNN survey indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapproves of how President Bush is handling his job as president. Although Bush's 28-percent approval rating is better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon, Truman and Nixon never had disapproval ratings higher than 70 percent. When President Nixon resigned in August 1974, his disapproval rating was at 66 percent.

 

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Printer.aspx?id=103284

 

And that's without getting into how unpopular the US has become around the world under Bush's leadership. A poll that was in the news about a year ago had the US at its lowest popularity since polling began...that's after reaching approval ratings under Clinton that hadn't been seen since WWII.

 

Your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But you've just underscored my point that that was an anti-bush reply, not an honest inquiry into the motivations and politics of Iran. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

It's a fairly widely held opinion. Bush's lack of intelligence has been pretty well documented. So has his religiousity.

 

Nice try though.

 

Fascinating. It's really odd to see an ABB thread promoting nuclear detente, of all things. But I guess the ABB crowd requires an ostensible explanation for supporting Iran, which Bush has spoken out against, and of course anything Bush speaks out against has to be supported, since that's what opposition means in this country these days.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Again, nice try. Perhaps I should ask you to prove that Iran wants nuclear weapons and isn't just trying to produce electricity, as they claim to be doing.

 

I don't believe that either, of course, but the fact is that there is no substantial evidence that Iran has a workable nuclear weapons program. The last time Bush went down this road, the international community pointed out that he was trumping up evidence where there was none.

 

Iran wants nukes because its enemies have nukes. It is very afraid of Israel and the US, and is sitting right beside occupied Iraq.

 

The other big power in the area is Saudi Arabia, led by a regime that is kept in power largely because of its connections to the US.

 

There's also political power in having nukes in that part of the world. The leaders of Pakistan saw their approval ratings rise dramatically when they announced having nukes. They might not be elected, but the leaders of Iran do have an image problem among their people.

 

There's another part to that as well. If the US...and you have precious little backing around the world...starts blowing things up in Iran, it will also boost the popularity of the Iranian leaders. They can point back to the Shaw and say, "See, they don't want us running things for ourselves."

[iNow]

I told him he could select a different wording for the subject line if he wished.

Gee, how nice of you. Let me ask, though, isn't he the one who chose the thread title originally, the one you just up and decided to change?

 

 

Sorry, man. I just disagree with your use of mod privilege on this one. I'll let it go, or we can PM if needed. I hope you are well.

[CDarwin]

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

 

I know it wasn't; it was a joke. Hence the sticking-out-tongue-face.

 

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.

 

It wasn't my intent to say that, and in this thread I think you've just taken what I've said, emptied it of its intended content, and gone off key words to hammer a point you wanted to make about a backlash against Bush, but I don't want to get into one of those "I didn't say that! Yes you did!" fights that conversations here seem to devolve into periodically.

 

 

The fact that we (and Israel and to a lesser extent the other nuclear states in the region) pose an existential threat to the Iranian regime is part the problem ('half' is a rhetorical device; you obviously can't quantify that). The fact that the Iranians perceive us as a threat is the other part. That's not just the right's fault; administrations stretching from Carter have established this belligerence. And you could certainly make the case that morally we should be a threat to the Iranian regime. But as long as that part of the problem is insolvable, the Iranian regime will continue to be at least partially justified in their paranoia.

 

As long as Iran feels threatened and has the capability (which they might not fully have now), it will seek nuclear deterrence. Now maybe I've overstated the inevitability. Perhaps by integrating Iran into the world system and making it feel secure it would no longer feel the need to continue nuclear weapons development and you could prevent a nuclear Iran altogether (although making Iran feel that secure would require many more countries than just the US to be involved and internal factors within Iran to line up properly). But either way it would require the same opening up, the same abandonment of much of current policy, and turning a blind eye to the immoral things the Iranian regime is doing. Maybe a war is better; I don't know.

 

In any event, I stand by my position that if the US continues along the trajectory set since the Iranian Revolution (which, among other factors has lead Iran to seek nuclear weapons) and also maintains its policy of "no nukes" for Iran, then there must be a war. Even if we can get Iran to back down in this crisis, the fundamental problems will still remain of a country fearful of the world.

 

I ask you, why hasn't Saudi Arabia tried to develop nuclear weapons? What's different about its situation as opposed to Iran's? If you consider that question, you can see where I'm coming from in positing than Iran's nuclear ambitions have less to do with ideology or Ahmedinijad's rhetoric than with old-fashioned insecurity.

 

I know you have the power to do this, but wouldn't the prudent action be to discuss this and gain agreement from the person who opened the thread before making any such change?

 

It just strikes me as incredibly rude, disrespectful, and self-righteous. Maybe you did PM CDarwin, and I'm just not privy to that communique?

 

What irritates me more, really, is that he (you, Pangloss) folded my McCain thread into here where it didn't really have anything to do with with conversation (and has been ignored accordingly). But, the forum is his (yours, Pangloss) ship.

[Pangloss]

I wasn't asking you what you know, indeed I would strongly doubt you actually know the intentions of the iranian regime, as I strongly presume you are not a part of it. I was asking how much you think Ahmadinejad's statements actually reflect the goals and intentions of the Iranian regime, or rather, to how large an extent he's "preaching" to the Arab world and his own populace.

 

Right, like I said, I have no idea how accurately those statements reflect the goals and intentions of the Iranian regime. By your same argument, neither do you. Which is why the default for should be "you don't get nukes", not "ok, you can have nukes, and we'll just assume you won't use them in spite of you saying that you intend to wipe Israel off the face of the map". And CERTAINLY the default should not be "well Bush says he shouldn't have nukes, therefore it's probably safe to let him have them".

 

 

The supreme leader of Iran, Khamenei, and other influential inividuals have often issued statements directly contradicting Ahmadinejad's, even directly after he has made his. I think it's important to realise that with that country your dealing with a wide political spectrum, much like the US, and I think the positions of the reformists have only been weakened by the antagonistic policies of the bush administration and the neocons.

 

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, and it's one I happen to think is accurate. But I also think that "bush and the neocons" were not necessarily wrong to pursue that approach, which might have worked with a few changes here and there, and I have zero respect for partisan "analysis" of their "failed policies" which would declare those policies to be wrong regardless of how successful they were.

 

Partisanship is a dangerous game, and it's one that's being played for very high stakes these days. One of the reasons I'm hoping for Obama in 2009 is that I believe he will be LESS maleable and responsive (even though his supporter George Soros is the worst of the worst when it comes to this sort of just-say-the-opposite-way-is-better partisanship). Obama doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would cave to that kind of pressure. He's more likely to apply a more intelligent approach to the matter.

 

But god help us if he listens to the ABB crowd and just does the opposite of whatever Bush did. Because some of that stuff (like a lot of this thread) is nuttier than a squirrel turd.

 

 

Also, I think any other policy, that isn't this childish "we don't like them so we will cut off all diplomatic links and impose sanctions approach" would help the US settle this dispute in a far better fashion.

 

This is mostly a partisan ruse, and that aspect of it that wasn't a ruse was an inappropriate response to a perfectly reasonable diplomatic tactic.

 

 

He's a religious fanatic who believes some bizarre things.

 

How many times has he ended a speech with "God bless America?"

 

All presidents have ended speeches with "God Bless America"' date=' including Democrats. I've personally seen John Edwards do it, as well as John Kerry. Can't speak for Obama or Clinton at the moment but I'm pretty sure I've heard her say it. This is typical partisan nonsense, categorizing people based on predisposition and popular assumption.

 

I happen to agree that the influence of the religious right was too great on the Bush administration, but we're talking about a matter of a few percentage points of "influence" here and there on certain specific matters (like partial-birth abortion). When you ABB types talk about those specific issues then you carry the mainstream opinion. When you rant about Bible-thumpers running the nation, or the total and complete loss of all civil liberties, or the destruction of the country, or the "failed presidency", blah blah blah, you're very much NOT carrying the mainstream opinion. You're in the extreme.

 

But that's you're opinion and you're welcome to it. Opinions I respect. Partisanship couched as mainstream opinion, not so much. Not so much at all.

 

 

Prove it. I think you'll find that the polls showed lower approval ratings for Nixon and Carter. Perhaps I'm wrong? Let's see your data.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/bush.poll/

 

 

Rofl! Thanks for proving my point. Here's a quote from your second link:

 

Still' date=' Bush's approval number is still better than the lowest number for his father, George H.W. Bush, who bottomed out at 29 percent in July 1992; Jimmy Carter, who fell to 28 percent in June 1979; Richard Nixon, at 24 percent in July and August 1974; and Harry Truman, who dipped to 22 percent in 1952.[/quote']

 

An SFN classic turnabout right there -- hoist by your own link!

 

 

It's a fairly widely held opinion. Bush's lack of intelligence has been pretty well documented.

 

Is it an opinion or is it something that's proven and documented? Take your pick and if it's the latter, produce the documentation. If it's the former, that's fine, I respect personal opinions here -- you're welcome to think what you want.

 

(Boy, a graduate degree from Harvard sure doesn't count for much these days, does it?)

 

 

I know it wasn't; it was a joke. Hence the sticking-out-tongue-face.

 

Ok, I'm down with that.

 

Let me cut to the chase here, since perhaps I'm making too much out of the partisanship in this thread:

 

The fact that we (and Israel and to a lesser extent the other nuclear states in the region) pose an existential threat to the Iranian regime is part the problem ('half' is a rhetorical device; you obviously can't quantify that). The fact that the Iranians perceive us as a threat is the other part. That's not just the right's fault; administrations stretching from Carter have established this belligerence. And you could certainly make the case that morally we should be a threat to the Iranian regime. But as long as that part of the problem is insolvable, the Iranian regime will continue to be at least partially justified in their paranoia.

 

As long as Iran feels threatened and has the capability (which they might not fully have now), it will seek nuclear deterrence. Now maybe I've overstated the inevitability. Perhaps by integrating Iran into the world system and making it feel secure it would no longer feel the need to continue nuclear weapons development and you could prevent a nuclear Iran altogether (although making Iran feel that secure would require many more countries than just the US to be involved and internal factors within Iran to line up properly). But either way it would require the same opening up, the same abandonment of much of current policy, and turning a blind eye to the immoral things the Iranian regime is doing. Maybe a war is better; I don't know.

 

This is a reasonable analysis that I can agree with. The question becomes what is it that we in the international community are willing to put up with in order to make them feel less threatened.

 

Neville Chaimberlain thought he knew. And we know what that accomplished. Does that mean appeasement is always wrong? I don't think so -- never have. Contrary to popular opinion it's been used COUNTLESS times since WW2. Sometimes it can even be a reasonable temporary solution.

 

But I do know this: Despots know what appeasement is, and they know how to manipulate it in their favor. If you don't back it up with a solid front of the expression of our displeasure COMBINED with the economic and military threat to back it up, they WILL laugh in your face and demand more.

 

 

I ask you, why hasn't Saudi Arabia tried to develop nuclear weapons? What's different about its situation as opposed to Iran's? If you consider that question, you can see where I'm coming from in positing than Iran's nuclear ambitions have less to do with ideology or Ahmedinijad's rhetoric than with old-fashioned insecurity.

 

Interesting... I'm not sure where you're going with that, but I invite you to explore that idea some more. What do you think?

 

 

 

What irritates me more, really, is that he (you, Pangloss) folded my McCain thread into here where it didn't really have anything to do with with conversation (and has been ignored accordingly). But, the forum is his (yours, Pangloss) ship.

 

I understand, but you read the responses from Akskebabs and Rev Blair objectively (instead of skipping over them because they agree with you) and then you tell me there's no partisanship going on in this thread -- which you set the table for with a bash on Bill O'Reilly (who isn't Iranian, nor a member of US Gov, last I checked). If you like I will take your above post and the first post of this thread and break them off into a new thread called "A Nuclear Iran" (your original title), and leave the partisanship issue behind in this one. Up to you.

[iNow]

All presidents have ended speeches with "God Bless America", including Democrats. I've personally seen John Edwards do it, as well as John Kerry. Can't speak for Obama or Clinton at the moment but I'm pretty sure I've heard her say it. This is typical partisan nonsense, categorizing people based on predisposition and popular assumption.

Dude. He was responding to a quote from ParanoiA:

 

He said this:

 

 

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.

So he said:

 

Oh? How many times has he ended a speech with "God bless America?" Given his religious leanings and the influence of fundamentalists in the Republican Party' date=' do you really think he's invoking the vague god of your deist founding fathers? I doubt it.

 

What about his propensity for mixing religion and politics? Faith-based programs for everything. Park guides offering creationism as an alternate "theory" for the formation of the Grand Canyon. Yeah, this is an administration that believes in the separation of church and state.[/quote']

 

Yet you edited his words:

 

He's a religious fanatic who believes some bizarre things.

 

How many times has he ended a speech with "God bless America?"

 

 

... and chose to COMPLETELY miss his point, suggesting that he was being partisan since "all presidents" have ended their speeches that way, including Democrats.

[Rev Blair]

Pangloss, I have to say that I find the way you've misrepresented me by selective is a fair bit less than honest.

 

I say that Bush is disliked and give examples related to a CNN poll that shows him to have a higher disapproval rating than anybody else...including Nixon when he resigned. That would make him the most disliked.

 

I didn't say that he was the least liked...that's quite a different thing. Even Ted Nugent has fans, after all.

 

You choose to selectively quote me, then quote a different part of the article.

 

I also gave the example of how the US and Bush are regarded outside of the US.

 

You accuse me of just attacking Bush, but in the meantime, you've ignored the parts of my posts specifically related to Iran.

 

You say I'm partisan. Well, so what? This is the politics section, after all. That doesn't mean that there aren't reasons for my partisanship...why I prefer Kucinich over Obama, Obama over McCain, and Nader over all all of them. It could just be that I've listened to what each of them has to say and have followed the situation in Iran and the Middle East for a very long time now.

 

Let's face it, if it wasn't for the US and, to a lesser extent, Britain, Iran would quite likely have some form of democracy right now. If it wasn't for the way things were divvied up after WWI, the Middle East would be a very different place right now. If the US would have backed pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran when the Shaw was running the country, Khomeini never would have succeeded in taking those hostages.

 

Those are past mistakes though. We're dealing with the mistake presently being made.

 

Do you think the US can win a war against Iran? Have you looked at Iraq lately? Iran is in much better shape than Iraq was.

 

Do you really think the world will back you attacking Iran? I have some pretty serious doubts about that.

 

Do you really think the American people will back it? I doubt that too.

 

Do you really think Iran is anywhere close to having usable nukes? As I said before, there is no evidence of that.

 

Do you think the Iranian leaders don't know that the world won't tolerate them making a first strike...especially against Israel?

 

Are you saying that detente never happened?

 

Are you saying that the only country ever to use nukes gets to decide what other country gets to possess nukes?

 

Are you saying that Iran, which hasn't started a war since their dust up with Iraq a few decades ago and would be contained by larger powers whether it had nukes or not, is less trustworthy than the US...that started a war with Iraq in this decade...or Israel...that has started several wars and bombed peacekeepers in Lebanon not all that long ago.

 

I'm not very happy with your debating tactics or your tone, Pangloss. I haven't seen you present a lot of facts about Iran at all, and your argument thus far has basically been that Iran is full of suicide bombers and we can't trust Muslims.

 

Perhaps you could explain your position a little more clearly, because from here it's starting to look like that old "my country right or wrong" jingoism that the US is so famous for.

[Pangloss]

Dude. He was responding to a quote from ParanoiA:

 

I'm aware of that, and he specifically responded to ParanoiA by using the phrase "God Bless America" not as an example of the technical use of the word "God" but as an example of Bush's zealous religious beliefs. My response was appropriate and accurate. Proof:

 

Oh? How many times has he ended a speech with "God bless America?" Given his religious leanings and the influence of fundamentalists in the Republican Party, [b']do you really think he's invoking the vague god of your deist founding fathers? I doubt it.[/b]

 

That having been dealt with,

 

Pangloss' date=' I have to say that I find the way you've misrepresented me by selective is a fair bit less than honest. [/quote']

 

Well, let's see what I've "misrepresented":

 

I say that Bush is disliked and give examples related to a CNN poll that shows him to have a higher disapproval rating than anybody else...including Nixon when he resigned. That would make him the most disliked.

 

I didn't say that he was the least liked...that's quite a different thing.

 

Neither of your links says anything like that. One of them shows Bush job approval ratings (no comparisons), and the other only mentions approval ratings in comparisons, and says nothing about disapproval ratings in comparison with any other president. It does, however, say that several other presidents had lower approval ratings. So if you want to show that Bush has "higher disapproval ratings" than any other president, you'll have to produce a source that actually says that.

 

The rest of your post is your opinion and I respect that. Since you admit you're just opposing Bush automatically regardless of what he says (by your own words: "You say I'm partisan. Well, so what?"), you're automatically unable to objectively determine Iran's intentions (at least so long as Bush has a stated position on it), so I have no interest in discussing the matter with you. By all means continue, though. I certainly won't stop you. I consider it a vast lowering of the quality of debate to have partisan "discussions" here, but that's my problem -- the rules permit it. Enjoy.

[Rev Blair]

Still not responding to any of my points about Iran then?

 

Oh well.

[ParanoiA]

Oh, it's crossed my mind, but if you actually look at who the suicide bombers are, they aren't the ones running things. The suicide bombers are young, powerless people who get talked into things by their higher-ups. The Ayotollahs an Imams aren't going to risk their own asses, and starting a nuclear war does exactly that.

 

That's certainly a fair assessment, but I think it's a bit naive and fool hardy to assume that the higher ups will never risk their own asses. Their culture has proven susceptible to the ultimate sacrifice to exercise murder against their enemy. To presume the Imams aren't EVER going to sacrifice their whole country to execute mass murder is to presume they don't really believe in their own rhetoric.

 

Ultimately, are you sure you can depend on your analysis if they were to be cornered? And that doesn't just mean the US. At any point in the future they could find themselves cornered by some other infadel. I'm not convinced they won't go out in an unprecedented national suicide-murder binge if pushed into it.

 

Oh? How many times has he ended a speech with "God bless America?" Given his religious leanings and the influence of fundamentalists in the Republican Party' date=' do you really think he's invoking the vague god of your deist founding fathers? I doubt it.

 

What about his propensity for mixing religion and politics? Faith-based programs for everything. Park guides offering creationism as an alternate "theory" for the formation of the Grand Canyon. Yeah, this is an administration that believes in the separation of church and state.

 

The man holds prayer meetings in the Oval Office when he should be working. He's been quoted as saying that he thinks god wants him to be president. [/quote']

 

Yeah, I don't think he's religious. I think it's a put on. He's a salesman, I think you give him too much credit. Purely speculative, I admit, but it's too obligatory to measure those standards. As a republican sell out, you have to say "god bless america", you have to stand for creationist agendas, and etc.

 

You may be right, I certainly haven't gone digging for any info on the matter. But my point still stands since the point was about perception anyway. Here I am, a fairly avid news reader and hobbyist in political philosophy, yet I had no idea. Apparently he doesn't pimp this stuff to the masses like the creepy government-religion hybrids controlling the middle east region. I have seen Ahmendinajed a fraction of the times I've seen Bush, and EVERY time I heard Ahmendinajed he talked about destroying Israel, praises to Allah, jihad and the infadels.

 

They are the opitome of what anti-religious types like me, iNow, you and others have railed against in the past. They embody all of the dogma, the fear mongering, the propaganda, the brain washing - on levels that dwarf ANY fraction of presence in our own government. They serve as the example when I indict religion.

 

Bush? I see an opportunist playing his crowd like he was paid to. And folks are buying it. Good sell.

[Rev Blair]

That's certainly a fair assessment, but I think it's a bit naive and fool hardy to assume that the higher ups will never risk their own asses. Their culture has proven susceptible to the ultimate sacrifice to exercise murder against their enemy. To presume the Imams aren't EVER going to sacrifice their whole country to execute mass murder is to presume they don't really believe in their own rhetoric.

 

Ultimately, are you sure you can depend on your analysis if they were to be cornered? And that doesn't just mean the US. At any point in the future they could find themselves cornered by some other infadel. I'm not convinced they won't go out in an unprecedented national suicide-murder binge if pushed into it.

 

Why would we corner them? The reality is that their culture is being undermined every day and eventually they won't have a corner to be cornered in. Talk to some people from Iran some day. Women wear the minimum required by law...a small hat, calf-length skirt etc. if they choose. They look a lot like women did here in the 1950s. They work too.

 

The pro-democracy movement, which would be much further along if it wasn't for us in the west, is growing every day.

 

Some of that is driven by an extremely vibrant press. Sure they have to deal with censorship and sometimes they go to jail, but the reality is that the press in Iran plays the role of the fourth estate much more vibrantly than the corporate-owned press in North America does. They have resisted attempts to shut them down.

 

The Iranian people might live under an oppressive regime, but there is a growing middle class and that middle class isn't terribly happy with being led by a bunch of religious fanatics. A lot of them remember what happened in the 1950s when they tossed the Brits out though, and how the US installed and propped up the Shah. They understand that Khomeini built his power base at least partially on the fact that the US didn't want real democracy in Iran. Worse yet, a lot of them feel that, as bad as things are there now, things were worse under the Shah.

 

That leaves the religious leadership and their sock puppets on the political side on pretty shaky ground. They will disappear eventually if we just sit and wait. We can exert some quiet pressure through the international community, but to go storming in making threats isn't going to work.

 

The one thing that will bring a halt to the slow growth of the democracy movement in Iran is attacking the country or even backing them into a corner. Leave them alone...they are contained and they understand that they are contained.

 

Yeah, I don't think he's religious. I think it's a put on. He's a salesman, I think you give him too much credit. Purely speculative, I admit, but it's too obligatory to measure those standards. As a republican sell out, you have to say "god bless america", you have to stand for creationist agendas, and etc.

 

You may be right, I certainly haven't gone digging for any info on the matter. But my point still stands since the point was about perception anyway. Here I am, a fairly avid news reader and hobbyist in political philosophy, yet I had no idea. Apparently he doesn't pimp this stuff to the masses like the creepy government-religion hybrids controlling the middle east region. I have seen Ahmendinajed a fraction of the times I've seen Bush, and EVERY time I heard Ahmendinajed he talked about destroying Israel, praises to Allah, jihad and the infadels.

 

They are the opitome of what anti-religious types like me, iNow, you and others have railed against in the past. They embody all of the dogma, the fear mongering, the propaganda, the brain washing - on levels that dwarf ANY fraction of presence in our own government. They serve as the example when I indict religion.

 

Bush? I see an opportunist playing his crowd like he was paid to. And folks are buying it. Good sell.

 

I think he's likely more religious than he lets on. I have some experience with coke fiend alcoholics who cured their addictions by finding one god or another. They fall back on magical thinking pretty quickly when under stress, but learn to hide it among secularists just like they used to hide their addictions in polite company.

 

Still, we know about the prayer meetings in the White House. We know that he's invited other world leaders to kneel and pray with him. We know how faith-based initiatives have proliferated under him. We know how stem cell research has been hurt. We know the global gag order is back on. We know that he said that god wanted him to be president.

 

Think about some of the less-considered implications of that as well. Just using global warming as an example.... How can somebody who believes the earth is 6,000 years old believe in global warming? The greenhouse theory is deeply entwined with evolutionary theory, after all. I don't know if Bush is capable of understanding that, but the fundamentalist preachers who pray with him in the White House are. So he's getting bad advice from two sides...his oil company buddies and his preachers.

[Pangloss]

A new report out today from the IAEA showed that while Iran's current efforts can only be classified as "peaceful", they should be able to produce a bomb by 2010, and the agency accused Iran of holding back information about high-explosives testing related to its nuclear program.

 

In short, the #4 oil producer in the world, exporting four million barrels of oil per day, continues work on a nuclear energy program. Yeah. Right. Maybe they just want to help out with global warming. That must be it.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSDAH67511820080526

[Rev Blair]

I know a lot of beef farmers who grow veggies for their own consumption too, Pangloss.

 

As I said, I don't believe that Iran doesn't want nukes, but the argument for them wanting nuclear energy for electricity is at least as strong as your supposition that they want that energy for bombs.

 

As for your global warming remark, Dubai and Saudi Arabia are both building environmentally friendly cities. Global warming isn't really the driving impetus there...these people aren't big on science...but they can see the environmental degradation happening around them, so have decided to act.

 

Competition between the Arab states, especially the Saudis, and the Iranians being what it is, that could be at least a partial motivation for Iran wanting to produce electricity from nuclear power.

 

I guess what I'm really pointing out is that over-simplification of this issue doesn't help at all. This is not just a matter of, "They bad, we good," and if it's dealt like as if it is, things will go very badly.

[Pangloss]

... but the argument for them wanting nuclear energy for electricity is at least as strong as your supposition that they want that energy for bombs.

 

Really? I was under the impression that nuclear power generation capability could be constructed without building any facilities that can participate in the construction of nuclear weapons. Is that not the case?

 

 

I guess what I'm really pointing out is that over-simplification of this issue doesn't help at all. This is not just a matter of, "They bad, we good," and if it's dealt like as if it is, things will go very badly.

 

If you mean like "Bush is an idiot", I certainly agree.

[iNow]

Bush is not stupid, but he's also not good at his job.

Bush is responsible for many problems, but not all of them.

His low approval ratings are representative of the job he's done, and should not be disregarded.

When someone speaks poorly of him, it is not always blind bashing, but is often based on very real, legitimate, and valid concerns.

 

Now, ffs, can we please show the same level of granularity when discussing Iran?

[Rev Blair]

Really? I was under the impression that nuclear power generation capability could be constructed without building any facilities that can participate in the construction of nuclear weapons. Is that not the case?

 

That depends on the technology you claim to be using, doesn't it? In Iran's case, they claim to be using technology that requires the same technology as nuclear weapons so they can produce the fuel.

 

Interestingly, Russia seemed to be making progress at first when they offered to supply the fuel. Then the sword rattling gave the Iranians the excuse they'd been looking for to insist on making their own plutonium. They were able to say that they couldn't trust anybody to not cut the supply off because of pressure from the US.

 

That was all crap, of course, but it's a pretty good example of where the bull in a china shop method gets you when it comes to foreign policy.

 

If you mean like "Bush is an idiot", I certainly agree.

 

Back to that, are we? Tell you what...if it makes you feel better you can call Stephen Harper a monomaniacal control freak who suffers from micro-penis syndrome. I certainly wouldn't quibble about it.

 

Bush is an idiot, the man can't even put together a coherent sentence, but the mistakes that have been made go back to when you had some very smart leaders. A lot of that is trying to impose your culture on theirs. It's the same mistake the British made.

 

Allowing Bush to take the mistakes of the past even worse would be the biggest mistake of all. You really don't want to start a war with Iran. You especially don't want to do it without the backing of the Russians and at least a tacit nod from China. It will make the quagmire in Iraq look like a mud puddle.

 

You have a lame duck president who should have been impeached a year ago. He's surrounded by people who have done the wrong things for the wrong reasons for as long as they've held power. Together with Bush, they've made your country both an international laughingstock and incredibly unpopular.

 

You can defend them, whether it's for some kind of misplaced national pride or because you, as a nation, don't think it's worth understanding the depth and complexity of the issues, or you can try to prevent him from making any more disastrous mistakes.

[Pangloss]

Bush is an idiot' date=' the man can't even put together a coherent sentence, but the mistakes that have been made go back to when you had some very smart leaders. A lot of that is trying to impose your culture on theirs. It's the same mistake the British made.

 

You have a lame duck president who should have been impeached a year ago. He's surrounded by people who have done the wrong things for the wrong reasons for as long as they've held power. Together with Bush, they've made your country both an international laughingstock and incredibly unpopular.

 

You can defend them, whether it's for some kind of misplaced national pride or because you, as a nation, don't think it's worth understanding the depth and complexity of the issues, or you can try to prevent him from making any more disastrous mistakes.[/quote']

 

Ah, so when over-simplification being implied happens to be against Bush, it's a matter of "depth and complexity of the issues". Got it.

 

I think that kind of over-simplification of this issue doesn't help at all. This is not just a matter of, "They bad, we good," and if it's dealt as if it is, things will go very badly. (Hm, where have I heard that before?)

 

 

That depends on the technology you claim to be using, doesn't it? In Iran's case, they claim to be using technology that requires the same technology as nuclear weapons so they can produce the fuel.

 

So then you agree that I've debunked this previous statement of yours:

 

... but the argument for them wanting nuclear energy for electricity is at least as strong as your supposition that they want that energy for bombs.

 

Great, moving on.

 

 

Interestingly, Russia seemed to be making progress at first when they offered to supply the fuel. Then the sword rattling gave the Iranians the excuse they'd been looking for to insist on making their own plutonium. They were able to say that they couldn't trust anybody to not cut the supply off because of pressure from the US.

 

I agree.

 

 

You really don't want to start a war with Iran. You especially don't want to do it without the backing of the Russians and at least a tacit nod from China. It will make the quagmire in Iraq look like a mud puddle.

 

I agree.

[Rev Blair]

Ah, so when over-simplification being implied happens to be against Bush, it's a matter of "depth and complexity of the issues". Got it.

 

I think that kind of over-simplification of this issue doesn't help at all. This is not just a matter of, "They bad, we good," and if it's dealt as if it is, things will go very badly. (Hm, where have I heard that before?)

 

What over-simplification? That Bush is an idiot? There have been pages and pages of examples of his lack of intelligence written. The deeper analyses have tied that lack of intelligence to many of his policy gaffes. Surely I'm not the only one here with access to the US media. I doubt I'm the only one with access to the foreign media either.

 

Was I supposed to delve into his entire foreign policy, or lack thereof, since he took over the presidency?

 

I was under the impression that you didn't just want us to be bashing Bush though, so I didn't think I should head off on tirade listing everything from PNAC to Uzbekistan.

 

So then you agree that I've debunked this previous statement of yours:

 

Not at all.

 

First of all, I've stated more than once that I think they want nukes, so it really isn't my statement you're debunking, just the argument they make.

 

Second of all, you've done nothing to address their argument. The leaders of Iran aren't terribly worried about convincing you and I of anything, their audience is in the Middle East and in countries like China who need their oil.

 

Third of all, there are other reasons...a couple of which I've touched on...for them to want nuclear power and other non-weapons nuclear technology.

 

Put it all together and their argument that they need those facilities and that technology for domestic use

stands up just as well as your claim that they only want it for bombs.

 

Hell, even if they admitted wanting nuclear weapons, they could still make the argument that it drives education, science, and technology and the people of Iran (that middle class I was talking about earlier) want those things.

[Pangloss]

That Bush is an idiot? There have been pages and pages of examples of his lack of intelligence written. The deeper analyses have tied that lack of intelligence to many of his policy gaffes. Surely I'm not the only one here with access to the US media. I doubt I'm the only one with access to the foreign media either.

 

Another assertion that Bush's IQ is an objective fact, ignoring my evidence to the contrary and my request for evidence from you. You don't any more right to do that than I do (and if you don't believe me, just watch iNow go ballistic if I say "Global Warming isn't caused by humans"). If you want to establish that Bush is an idiot as objective fact, produce the evidence. If not just call it your opinion and let's move on.

 

 

I've stated more than once that I think they want nukes, so it really isn't my statement you're debunking, just the argument they make.

 

True, I admit you have a point there. Ok, you've accepted my counter-argument that their excuse isn't valid, because you agree with me that they really want nukes.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Pangloss

[CDarwin]

Wow, this thread has gotten way away from me. I really shouldn't take days off. I don't think the response I was going to give to the response Pangloss gave me three days ago is even worth posting any more.

 

I will say that we're not necessarily talking about appeasement in the Neville Chamberlain sense here. Germany was making territorial demands that the Allies gave into. Iran isn't really demanding anything of that sort. The only concession that we could make would be give up advocating for regime change in Iran. The situation with Nazi Germany in 1938 was leagues separate from the one with Iran today and comparisons between the two are troublesome at best.

 

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.

[Rev Blair]

Okay, 'scuse the lack of quotes...not sure if it's this place or if Mrs. Rev did something to my 'puter while I was out. I also seem to have lost ten pages of notes and ramblings on the lies and misconstruations of the Harper government. Anyway...

 

Pangloss:

 

Wow, you are really hung up on Bush's IQ, Pangloss. The man can't put a sentence together. He uses the wrong word, or makes up new words, on a regular basis. That's not being plain-spoken, that's being stupid...or perhaps aphasic.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I don't care if the man has an IQ of 342 and his brain is so big that he's had to have a skull enlargement, he acts like an idiot, so it's best to work under the assumption that he's an idiot.