Today on Blogcritics
Home » Why We Can’t Live With A Nuclear Iran

Why We Can’t Live With A Nuclear Iran

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I've noticed something about people. When provided an out in a sticky situation, people tend to take it, regardless of future consequences. This is known as a dynamic inconsistency, a situation where people's preferences change over time. A great example is the high school kid who drops out. His present self is thrilled with the decision to sleep late and watch daytime TV as opposed to buckling down in class, but his future self likely won't be nearly as happy with the reduced ability to earn as life goes on. Generally speaking, it's much better to consider your future self, and not the immediate happiness of the present self, when making long range decisions.

Dynamic inconsistency has been on full display here in New York this week with the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to the UN as well as Columbia University to lay out his platform for his nuclear program and the impacts this has on global policy. The first shot across the bow of the USS What’s Best For America was fired last week when Retired Army General John Abizaid commented that the US could abide by a nuclear Iran. Following this, Ahmadinejad was provided with multiple platforms including the aforementioned university in order to sound byte his softened message to the masses.

Far be it for me to differ with an experienced and partial leader of the military, especially someone as esteemed as General Abizaid. And I don't think the essence of what he said was wrong. Certainly the US could manage with just one more nuclear state.

However, I think the General misses the bigger point, and perhaps he made his comments with only his present self in mind. For example, Iran isn't just another country. Iran has designs to be the super power of the Middle East (and eventually the world). Such aspirations are not necessarily appreciated by its neighbors. Following the development of Iranian nuclear capability, there is a distinct possibility that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey or other countries might engage in a Middle East version of a nuclear arms race in order to create a balance of power. Certainly, such an arms race is not something that the US or any country could or should abide, but at that stage, we'd be in a difficult position to stop it. Alternatively, Iran could simply use its new found nuclear power to lord over all of the other Middle East and neighboring nations, as they attempt to do currently without nukes. Either scenario is extremely destablizing for the Middle East, and the world considering our dependence on oil.

Other arguments have been made to further calm concerns of Iran becoming nuclear. One argument says that the US has it all wrong, Iran's quest is for peaceful nuclear energy for the Iranian people. Another says that the nuclear goal is really to help Iran gain more respect on the world stage (as stated by their own UN Ambassador). These points are at odds with each other – if the goal is peaceful energy, how would that give Iran any more respect as a country? Alternatively, Iran is already one of the most feared nations in the region, and they have plenty of trading partners among UN members (as evidenced by the UN's lack of willingness to support sanctions). So what kinds of additional respect are they trying garner exactly?

The fact is that if Iran really wanted to expand its energy resources and independence, they could build oil refineries to process all of the oil resources that are abundant naturally within Iranian borders into petroleum. Right now, Iran runs the (unlikely) risk being cut off from gas by UN sanctions. Some postulate that the Iranians are not interested in this idea as oil is not a clean technology. However, I've not heard any plans from Iran to stop drilling for oil once nuclear energy generation has been achieved, so clearly the concern for the environment isn't a driver in their quest to split the atom.

Bear in mind that a byproduct of even peaceful nuclear energy generation is plutonium. Over time it produces substantial amounts of Plutonium.  Unlike Uranium, even non-weapons grade plutonium can be used to make a nuclear bomb – weapons grade Plutonium just makes a bomb more powerful. The technology needed to create a plutonium based bomb is well within the capacity of a country that can generate nuclear energy. So let's be clear, nuclear weapons capability is an unfortunate byproduct of allowing a country to develop peaceful nuclear energy. If Iran can develop nuclear reactors, they can in very short order create a nuclear bomb.

There will be those who will cast me as a Neocon or some such label and suggest that I am advocating war with Iran. Interestingly, this logic belies their own fear of war as a driver for accepting something that our future selves might regret. And it's worth noting that I am not in favor of any war, unless as a last resort. However, I do see the value in keeping such options as well as all others, available.

It's also worth noting the history of the subject, namely Ahmadinejad himself. Much has been made about his appearance at Columbia, ranging from slight criticism to a debate on DailyKos as to whether he is hot or not. Seriously. However, no matter the extent of the delusion indulged by my liberal friends, the fact is that Ahmadinejad, has previously threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" and even this week raised his own questions as to whether the Holocaust ever happened ("it needs more study"). This is the president of a country whose military is actively killing Americans in Iraq right now. Shame on Columbia for giving this man any platform, which has served not to open any "dialogue" but instead made him more accessible and appear more human to the more presently-focused, dynamically inconsistent among us here in the US. It's too bad confusion can't be burned like oil, because right now there is no shortage of it here in the US.

Some will point out the supposed hypocrisy of my position, as I am a citizen of the single most nuclear capable country in the world. Moral relativism abounds. Bush isn't the despot that Ahmadinejad and his Mullaharchy are, despite the impassioned claims to the contrary by my friends on the left. For all our ills, the U.S. has managed to keep our finger off that button for over 60 years. Can we, more importantly, should we, entrust this same capability to the Iranians?

It's true that Iran isn't a "suicide country," and the Iranian people are not all of the jihadist ilk. But Iran's leaders have sent plenty of signals, by their words and actions, that they are sympathetic with the Islamic terrorist 'struggle' against the US. War within Iran's borders would be very tough for the US to engage in, even with unlikely multilateral support. (Incidentally, it's worth noting that UN support is unlikely mainly because of the greed of various UN Security Counsel members, not because of a lack of agreement regarding the seriousness of the issue). So what are we to do?

We need to engage Iran, but not in terms of appeasement or pleading with them to cooperate. The U.S. can offer security guarantees with the full backing of the US military and guarantee petrol, provided Iran completely drops any nuclear aspirations. We also need to fix the problems in the UN that keep the security counsel from doing its job (namely applying sanction-based pressure). Without sanction based pressure looming over Iran, any attempt to engage Iran by the US or by the UN will be futile – any deal must be backed with the threat of intense economic and other sanctions.

The US can and should continue to foment unrest within Iran. The people of Iran don't agree with the platform of the mullahs and there is a substantial populace there that would love an end to the current government rule. This type of thinking is and needs to continue to be encouraged.

Finally, we need to have a military strategy as well. This is where the war in Iraq becomes crucial – if we can't beat Iranian forces currently fighting our troops in Iraq, Iran won't take us and our demands that they stop nuclear research seriously. Far from withdrawal or redeployment, we must continue to presevere in Iraq, and we must beat back any Iranian forces that we encounter there with our full military might. Further, we cannot leave Iraq in chaos, as that will be yet another testament to our weakness, and will be a written invitation for Iran to continue it's nuclear quest.

If Iran is unwilling to work with us for their security and energy needs, and if the UN is unwilling to police itself serving members and apply real sanctions to stop Iran, then there aren't too many other options left aside from the military one. And while this might not make our present and possibly near future selves very happy, it may very well be necessary to ensure our children’s future selves a stable world, akin to the one we've been able to flourish in. A world without Iran as a nuclear power.

Powered by

About The Obnoxious American

  • dee

    Let them have nukes. Why do only certain so-called “good” countries get to have them?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Because they don’t have a president who makes a speech adocating genocide weekly. Because they don’t finance an international terrorist network with tens of thousands of agents in dozens of countries?

    dave

  • Will

    Why are we focusing on a less lethal threat such as Iran and not on a bigger threat like North Korea?
    Oh right: OIL.

    Will

  • STM

    Yep, the Iranians are meddling in southern Iraq – one of the world’s richest oil resources – hoping to increase their sphere of influence, and ultimately, their control.

    So yeah, why wouldn’t we be worried about that.

    Nevetheless, the US probably should start talking to them instead of continuing to rattle the sabre.

    Bush’s blind refusal to speak to people he doesn’t like is like the kid in the playground who wants to take his bat and ball and go home unless everyone does what he wants.

    Maybe he should just start playing ball, whether he likes the people on the other team or not.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Will, you’re making the mistake of assuming that Iran and N. Korea aren’t working together. Keep your eyes on the Politics section for my upcoming article which will disabuse you of that delusion.

    Dave

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Stan,

    You spent a while in the Middle East. You know that folks who have nothing else, do have words, and as long as anyone wastes time with the Persians with words, they’ll continue to arm and develop their own power. Then they’ll have more than words, and will not need to talk.

    It seems reasonably clear to me that Ahmadinejad talking is just a tool to keep America from acting. Chess may have come from India, but the Persians refined it into the game it is. They are patient and they know how to take their time with moves – and force the opponent to do the same.

    You’re right. The Americans should not rattle the saber. They should wield it – in the deadliest, most efficient and quickest way possible. If they fail to, events will spiral out of their puerile hands – if they haven’t already.

  • Jay Harris

    I believe that Daniel Imperato has the right solution for Iran and their nuclear aspirations.

  • Al

    I think this author should re-write the same article but change iran to israel. The arm race has already begun and we let Israel get their nukes and don’t allow anyone else to do it. Last time I checked Iran hasn’t attacked another country in over 250 years. Israel just sent lebanon back to the dark ages last summer.

  • Dr Dreadful

    I dunno who this Imperato fellow is, but doesn’t he look a bit like William Shatner?

  • The Obnoxious American

    AI,

    Your intelligence is artificial as evidenced by your nonsense. Israel has had nukes for decades and they have proven their trustworthyness with them. So you don’t like Israel, I get that. But there are people who live there and have a right to exists, despite the impassioned claims by those such as Ahmadinejad. Conversely, the Iranians have made explicit threats of genocide.

    You think I should rewrite this article? I think you should READ this article.

  • The Obnoxious American

    As far as this Imperato fellow, I do tend to side with Libertarians, save for when they are completely apathetic. However, after clicking around on his site and eventually getting to the Foreign policy section of Issues, not a single word on Iraq.

  • The Obnoxious American

    er, Iran :>

  • Dr Dreadful

    I saw what you mean, OA. His site is so atrociously designed that I didn’t even want to look for anything to click on.

  • Josh G.

    Here are some links to Imperato’s Iran Strategy.

    Its important to read his views on Iran and see how he understands the region.

  • Jay Harris

    Just do a google search on his name “Daniel Imperato” “Iran”

  • Alec

    RE: This is the president of a country whose military is actively killing Americans in Iraq right now.

    So, if only Iranians or Iraqis were being killed, then everything would be OK Fine?

    And I suppose that if Americans pulled out of Iraq, then also there would be no problem.

    RE: Shame on Columbia for giving this man any platform, which has served not to open any “dialogue” but instead made him more accessible and appear more human to the more presently-focused, dynamically inconsistent among us here in the US.

    On the other hand, Columbia provided a forum where “this man” could be shown to be uninformed and deserving of mockery. It’s that freedom of speech thing.

    But responding to your main point, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, not just weapons in development. If Pakistan became a fundamentalist nation, would they then be subject to attack?

    India also has nuclear weapons. So now, are you suggesting that the unilateral policy of the US should be that we have the sole legitimate right to decide who can have these weapons and who they can subsequently assist?

    The answer may indeed be yes, but people, especially conservatives, need to get off this over-reliance on looking to the Bush Administration to define enemies. This short-sightedness and bonehead jingoism will lead to all kinds of nasty surprises.

  • moonraven

    I could not even finish this self-serving drivel.

    But I have a few comments, anyway:

    1. Forget the autobiographical leads. We already know that your a card-carrying member of the underclass. Your experience is meaningless in regard to geopolitics.

    3. Find out about countries before you shoot your ignorant keyboard off about them. Iran is not going to be “cut off from gas” because of sanctions. IT HAS THE SECOND LARGEST GAS RESERVES ON THE PLANET.

    4. Spare readers the uninformed character assassinations. You know absolutely nothing about Iran or its president–not even enough to have an OPINION.

    5. Forget the double standards. The US is the biggest fomentor and sponsor of terrorism on the planet, and is nuclear to the eyeballs. Israel is also a nuclear power–with not only a reactor that send radiation 24/7 into the West Bank and Jordan–but The Bomb.

    6. Who ordained you to pontificate about how your vision is more longterm and on target than a professional military pundit?

    As for the comments: Nalle topped himself this time by writing “Because they don’t have a president who makes a speech adocating genocide weekly. Because they don’t finance an international terrorist network with tens of thousands of agents in dozens of countries?”

    That president, of course, is GW BUSH! And the international terrorist network is operated by the CIA.

    Just facts.

    [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

  • moonraven

    For the person who rightly sked why some countries are okayed to have nuclear power and weapons and others are not, you are RIGHT ON TARGET.

    Yesterday the referenced president of Iran and the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales (Go, Native Brother!!!!!) announced in La Paz that nuclear power was the right of all countries–not just of the Bullies on the Corner.

    The president of Iran is now in Caracas.

    The New World Order continues to take shape–while you hasbeen bullies are just turds in the toilet waiting to be flshed into the bowels of history.

    Good riddance.

  • http://www.ernamahyuni.com Erna

    What disturbs me about this article is its rather accurate portrayal of the way the West (or specifically the United States) views Iran.

    Where once you were comfortable to paint Russia and Russians in a certain light, your perception of Iran is skewed. Your treatment and perception of Iran’s president, painting him as some power-hungry sinister mastermind is prejudiced and uninformed.

    Malaysia itself is a predominantly Muslim country and the way we perceive the US’s unquestioned loyalty to Israel and quickness to question Iran is coloured with fear and disatisfaction. The judgemental attitudes towards Muslims and Arabs in particular is actually helping sway global Muslim sentiment towards supporting their ‘brothers’ instead of the Supercop of the World. I pray it will never come to this but the prejudice and fear towards Muslims and predominantly Muslim countries, especially in the United States sickens me.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Great article. Good logic.

    Enjoy the flames of the moonbats… ;-)

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Why are we focusing on a less lethal threat such as Iran and not on a bigger threat like North Korea?
    Oh right: OIL.”

    LOL.

    Actually, North Korea has been a serious issue on the agenda of this administration for several years now. There have been six-party talks going on since, what, 2004?

    And just recently, we were able to coerce North Korea into an agreement where the North Korean government has promised to dismantle their entire nuclear program in exchange for aid. (Which is why semi-intelligent Democrats don’t bother to mention North Korea much anymore…)

  • moonraven

    You can’t even find it on a map.

    Actually, you can’t find Iran, either.

    Daniel Ellsberg is speaking out against going to war with Iran–here’s PART of the article reprinted on the CommonDreams site:

    “The 76-year-old activist gained notoriety during the Vietnam War when he released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and other newspapers, detailing internal U.S. policy decisions regarding the war and its escalation.

    Ellsberg said in the last few weeks he has begun to think a coup has occurred in the presidency of George Bush, which he characterized as a “rogue administration.”

    He said that if a new 9/11 terrorist attack happens in the United States, the president would not hesitate to suspend and dismantle the Constitution and that hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners and dissidents could end up in detention camps. “I think we’re in danger – we’re in a crisis,” he said.

    Ellsberg pointed to actions taken by Bush that he said violate the law, including endorsing warrantless surveillance and lying to Congress about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At the same time, he was quick to chastise the Democrats in Congress, saying that by going along with Bush’s war they’ve failed their duty to uphold the Constitution.

    He said the Senate resolution passed Wednesday declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization is an invitation for Bush to declare war on Iran.

    Ellsberg compared Wednesday’s resolution to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, passed Aug. 7, 1964, that gave Johnson a virtually blank check for combat in North Vietnam. He laid out a scenario of $200 a barrel for oil, the possibility of retaliatory attacks against the U.S. and the president keeping open the “nuclear option” to attack Iran. He said he is asking people in government who have information that could stop such a war before it happens to not do what he did by releasing the Pentagon Papers after the war started. He said they should do what he didn’t do – release the information before a disaster happens. “Don’t wait till the war has started,” Ellsberg told the audience. “Don’t wait till the bombs are falling or thousands more have died.”

    Ellsberg said he has been called a traitor numerous times for breaking a “vow of secrecy” when he released the Pentagon Papers. But Ellsberg said he took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution – the same oath all military and public servants are required to take.

    “It is not an oath to the president,” Ellsberg said. “And it’s not an oath to keep secrets. And it’s not an oath to the commander in chief, or the Fuhrer or Caesar or to the flag. “It is an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

    © 2004-2007 Lancaster Newspapers

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    #6:

    “their [American] puerile hands”

    Maybe we should let Israel do the dirty work this time…and run the attendant risks…

  • dee

    “5. Forget the double standards. The US is the biggest fomentor and sponsor of terrorism on the planet, and is nuclear to the eyeballs. Israel is also a nuclear power–with not only a reactor that send radiation 24/7 into the West Bank and Jordan–but The Bomb. That president, of course, is GW BUSH! And the international terrorist network is operated by the CIA.”

    Thank you moonman. This country, the US, my country, needs a wake up call. We are responsible for some of the “sh*t” we are in now because of our foreign policy tactics over the years, especially when dealing with the middle east. I doubt that most Americans would admit this though. Most cannot even consider, let alone admit, that maybe we have created some of this hatred. So I guess we are just in denial. Also, we have to stop all this focus on the Iranian leader, most of the rest of the (Iranian) country doesn’t like this guy. Let’s not give them a reason to get behind him by being stupid (again) and attacking.

  • REMF

    “And just recently, we were able to coerce North Korea into an agreement where the North Korean government has promised to dismantle their entire nuclear program in exchange for aid.”

    If not, we need to attack immediately, drafting all able bodied men (18-45 years old) to the front lines…and NO DEFERMENTS for war-wimps this time!!

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    We did manage to survive a few decades with a nuclear Soviet Union and a nuclear China. A nuclear Iran is not something to be wished for, but even the Bush administration is reluctant to make the kind of “line in the sand” ultimatum this [clumsily written] article would like to see.

    And certainly not all diplomacy is ‘appeasement.’ Again, we talked to the Soviets even when tensions were high, and the world became a safer place when we started talking to the Chinese in the ’70s.

    PS If you are a neocon, no need to dodge the fact and pretend it’s a dirty word. Not a very highly respected philosophy at the moment, however.

  • Les Slater

    The U.S. is becoming more and a helpless, but still dangerous, giant.

    Any supporting it are not only morally bankrupt but two-faced cowards.

  • Baronius

    Most Americans realize that our support of Israel has made some enemies. I think that most Americans are ok with it. (Think or at least hope.) It’s worth standing up for a democracy, especially an isolated one. It’s all the more honorable that we’ve sided with the only oil-free country in the Middle East. France sold its soul to the Baathists in exchange for oil; we stood by our democratic allies.

    Is Iran a suicide country? That’s like asking if Ugandans seem murderous. It doesn’t even make sense. It simplifies geopolitics down to a sound bite, ignoring history and human nature.

  • Reza Palahvi

    This debate and treatment of a potential ally/friend in the middle east (IRAN) demonstrates the outright racist views that Americans have toward Muslims, Persians (Ruvy you’re the worst kind of racist) Arabs, et al……Russians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistani’s and Europeans can have nuclear capability because they are smart enough, progressive enough and manipulated enough to convince us that they aren’t crazy enough to use THE bomb.

  • Clavos

    “Any supporting it are not only morally bankrupt but two-faced cowards.”

    Thanks, les.

  • The Obnoxious American

    For one, I have said that we need to put all options on the table such as diplomatic ones. Did you read my points on what we should do, namely offer security and energy gauruntees to the Iranians? That sure sounds like diplomacy to me.

    Comparing the USSR to Iran is cute but not accurate – the Russians still wanted to live and didn’t support groups that valued jihadist death over living.

    Since MR couldn’t be bothered to read my article, I can’t really be bothered to read her response. But actually, I am much happier that way.

    Thanks to all that read the article and agree, thanks to those that read it with an open mind and considered what I was saying.

  • Reza Palahvi

    “the Russians still wanted to live and didn’t support groups that valued jihadist death over living.”

    Your jihadist comment is even cuter OA!
    This suicide bomber epidemic is fairly new to Muslim culture. I don’t think the Old Believers of the Russian Church would agree with you and practiced their form of jihadism with their brand of fire by baptism.

    Nonetheless, you make my point that you as an obnoxious American are racist and believe that Iranians are incapable of discerning between a car bomb and a nuclear one.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Baronius,

    The “suicide country” comment came from Gen Abizaid himself, I was addressing/expounding upon his point, and tried to give it more meaning than a simple soundbyte, by talking about how the people of Iran differ from the leaders in Iran, which is true.

    To those that claim our support of Israel is the problem, thats real blaming the victim mentality. Israel has been attacked by virtually all of their neighbors since inception, and this potential ally as you call Iran is actually calling for Israel’s destruction.

    While Israel would advocate a preemptive attack on Iran to destroy it’s nuclear capability, you can also be sure that they are not calling for Iran to be “wiped off the map” Furthermore, if Iran would stop talking about wiping Israel off the map, it’s quite likely Israel wouldn’t have as much of a problem with Iran.

    Of course, this is all very hard for someone who hates Israel to believe. What I don’t get is why so many people hate Israel, when as has been stated, they are a lone democracy in the middle east, they most closely resemble westernized nation, and most importantly, they are inhabited by Jews as a result of the holocaust.

    The only explaination I can find for people who hate Israel is a mixture of anti Semitism (sorry Ruvy – anti Jew), blame the victim mentality and a little appeasement/stockholm syndrome peppered in for good measure.

    I am sure that last comment will result in much flaming from the usual gang along with a list of supposed atrocities carried out by the Israelis against Palestinians. I just wish you stopped for a second and asked yourself whether the Palestinians are actually a partner for peace or whether their intention is singularly to destroy Israel regardless of the consequences, which any impartial reading of the history there would suggest. Your response will be that they don’t have to be a partner for peace, yadda yadda and the Jews should just leave.

    I gotta tell you though, us Jews gotta go somewhere, and Israel is our land. I’ve seen Israel try for peace with Palestinians, why are the Palestinians so resistant to the idea, yet so willing to kill? And why would you side with that?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    “And just recently, we were able to coerce North Korea into an agreement where the North Korean government has promised to dismantle their entire nuclear program in exchange for aid.”

    And so the north koreans sold their nuclear materials to the Iranians who set up a base in Syria to do weapons development which was just bombed by the Israelis.

    dave

  • The Obnoxious American

    Reza,

    Obviously you didnt read what I wrote. Scroll up a bit and read what I said about the Iranian people vs the Iranian leaders.

    In the meantime, I have every right to say that you have not taken the time to read or understand the viewpoint you are commenting on. That’s disrespectful of my time and others who have to read past your willful ignorance. If you want to debate an article, it’s kind of pertinent for you to actually read it my friend.

    And incidentally, as a Jew growing up in the 70s and 80s, I knew plenty of Iranian Jews who had to flee Iran (taking only the shirts on their backs) because they would have been killed if they stayed. My first girlfriend was Iranian (hi Dahlia if you are reading this :>). I have a sneaking suspicion you don’t care about that because I’m talking about Jews.

    So you are basically making charges of racism without any kind of knowledge about me on an article I wrote that you couldnt be bothered to read. You are guilty of the very thing you are suggesting of this proud American. I’d really think twice about what I am posting if I were you unless you want to continue to come off as an uninformed fool.

    Im out. Have a great weekend people

  • Reza Palahvi

    All because of a bad translation….”wiped off the map” really was supposed to mean “change the lines on the map”. The “holocast never happened” was supposed to mean “I was kissing my wife during Schindlers List”.

  • Les Slater

    “…offer security and energy gauruntees to the Iranians?”

    Iran needs much more energy than it now has to develop economically. The U.S. has no intention of ALLOWING Iran to develop economically. It’s nothing more than an imperialist bully.

  • Ninja

    Several things the US should do:

    1. The US should apologize to Iran for the 1953 overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh by the CIA in 1954.

    2. The US should apologize to Iran for refusing to return the Shah to Iran in 1979 to stand trial for crimes against the people of Iran.

    3. The US should apologize to Iran for providing poison gas to Iraq to be used against Iranians.

    4. The US should then agree to sit down with the countries in the area and apply the same standards of justice that the US constitution applies to its own citizens.

    Only then is there a chance to see countries in the area move further toward the democracy that is suppose to exist in the US,

  • Zedd

    Obnoxious,

    This is simply White Supremacy. It is so embedded in your psyche that you cant recognize it. How any of what you said makes sense is perplexing. White Supremacy is among the last great remnants of our primitive past. Completely irrational! Always has been, always will be.

    If Iran’s neighbors are worried about any country in their region progressing, THEY need to out do them.

  • Zedd

    By the way, more people have died in Iraq because of George Bush than Saddam Hussein. Not sure where your comparison of Bush and the Iranian President comes from. But who gets to wear the White hat is not the White guy by default.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Zedd, the racism accusation is classically intellectually lazy. You see what you assume is there, not the way things really are.

    Iranians ARE ‘white’ in every meaningful sense of the word. Look at how easily hundreds of thousands of them have assimilated in US society. Better than even many European groups.

    Your math is also not very good. Saddam Hussein can claim credit for a minimum of 1.2 million deaths. Bush isn’t even close.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    Erna,

    Thank you for that bit of insight into what is the nature of dominating culture.

    Dominant culture sees itself alone as relevant. The rest are invisible.

    Unfortunately, this dynamic is difficult to change. It is the history of the world. It is what makes me a cynic.

    We need a dialog, like the one you started in #19, and many more like it.

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    Iranians claim to be Aryan. I have had some of the darkest people, almost Indian looking tell me they are not Arab, they are Persian. Both you and I can look at Ahmadinejad and clearly say that that he does not look White. In our world, we would consider him a DARK Mexican on site. We live in a White supremacist world Dave. This notion is more so new to you than myself. It is you who needs to expand your horizon. Now….

    Race itself is a social construct as we have explained so any reference to biology is mute.

    What I am referring to is the notion or IDEA of Whiteness and its assumed correctness in OUR society. Even though Iranians consider themselves White, most Westerners don’t know that. So what is applied to all others who are not “White” would be applied to them.

    This author and most people assume innate wrongness when dealing with issues that involve none European people. Iraq wants nuclear capability in this time in our history. They want to develop. We assume that they will be crazy and blow up the world because they are not us (a “European” nation). They are crazy and would choose to destroy the world because of their near “animalistic” characteristics. They are not civilized and certainly not as evolved as “we”. We calculate their conflicts to be more disastrous than ours, even though their cultures have survived for millenia.

    When we blow people up, cause chaos in their world, or enslave them, we put a rational padding around those actions and assume madness, ignorance, unexplainable irritability and irrationality when none White nations do the same.

    We have analyzed Hitler to where even though we see him as an evil person, we get what happened and we see his humanity in all the madness. The tendency with none Europeans is to take ONE broad stroke and label them as backward and uncivilized (inferior). Meaning that “we” are superior. Heck why do you think the “Bell Curve” is so plausible to most Whites?

  • Zedd

    Dave

    Actually the range for Saddam’s murders is 500,000 to 1,000,000 in 24yrs. The estimates of the deaths that have been caused by our occupation are 100,000 to 793,000, in 4 1/2 years.

    While all of the numbers quoted are staggering who would you label the most devastating of a butcher? Now heres to the bigger point, how does Ahmadinejad stack up to any of these stats?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Not sure how dragging race into it helps, but Zedd is right. Iran, or Persia, has been at the crossroads of Asia since recorded history began. It’s been invaded or crossed by everyone from Alexander’s Macedonians to Khan’s Mongols and all of them left their genetic legacy behind. You’re as likely to see a fair-skinned, blue-eyed or an Asiatic-looking Iranian as you are to see a classically Middle Eastern-looking one.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Zedd, I’d appreciate it if you stopped projecting your racist assumptions onto others. I don’t look at people and think of them as ‘white’. No one has white skin, except maybe albinos. Ahmadinejad’s skin color can’t compete with my rich, dark Texas tan and if he lost the beard he could fit in perfectly well in the racially diverse US and no one would think twice about him except for a few leftists who define everyone by their ‘race’.

    You constantly assume that everyone is as ignorant and bigoted as you seem to be, and that’s just not the case. Most of us here in the US live in such a maelstrom of racial diversity that we’ve learned long ago that the kind of ethnocentric assumptions you make are a waste of time.

    As for relative levels of ‘buthery’, such deaths as have happened since the US invasion of Iraq have been overwhelmingly caused not by the US but by other invaders, insurgents and terrorists, many of them Iranian. How many of those deaths in Iraq are directly attributable not to the US who you and others erroneously blame but to the thousands of Iranians and Iranian-backed terrorists there?

    Realistically the US is directly responsible for about 30K deaths, almost all of them as a result of direct military conflict and almost all of them either combatants, terrorists or insurgents. US caused civilian deaths are minute in number.

    As for an Iranian death count, it’s probably roughly comparable from their various operations around the world, but of course because of their methods their kills are overwhelmingly civilian. Plus about 6000 political murders inside Iran since the regime took control.

    But the concern is not what Ahmadinejad has done in the past, it’s the combination of his stated intentions combined with a greater capacity to kill people in the form of nuclear weapons. He has killed thousands through terrorism with conventional weapons. If he followed the same program and had nuclear weapons the casualties would be in the millions. What’s wrong with trying to prevent that?

    Dave

  • Ninja

    Just got a copy of this letter:

    Dear Wormwood,

    I remind you that we must instigate fear of others because fear provides the best motivation to dominate. We must use bureaucracy and the media to achieve this by its ability to propagate grievances supporting our advancement of self-importance and resentment.

    Your narcissistic and Machiavellian uncle,

    Screwtape

  • moonraven

    And Nalle, Yes, Iranians are white–but since nobody in the US knows the difference between Arabs and Persas or between Arabic and Farsi, it’s the PERCEPTION that Iranians are NOT white that is generalized in the US that inspires hate.

    Hence, it is racism through and through.

    Just like your hatred of anything and everything that might even POTENTIALLY conflict with your screwball PERCEPTION of the world around you.

    How are things in Central America, wiseguy?

  • Baronius

    Dave, I don’t think Zedd is ignorant and racist. Her comments reflect educated racism. She can tell you the color and race of everyone she’s ever met. She’s studied these things.

    I remember Steve Martin used to say that most of us forget what we learn in college, but philosophy majors remember just enough to screw them up for the rest of their lives. I think that racial studies do the same thing. I recall a comment Zedd made about white southern Christians loving displays of the Ten Commandments, but hating blacks. It strikes me as the kind of madness that a person can only attain by years of losing perspective.

    Cindy’s comment is also offensive: that according to the dominant culture, all other cultures are invisible. Why would she say that? She’s lumping everyone in the dominant culture together, and passing judgement on them. Pretty arrogant stuff. Dave, as you’ve noted, American culture is extraordinary in its acceptance of other cultures.

    I’ll never forget walking into a Chinese restaurant as “Feliz Navidad” was playing on their sound system.

  • Clavos

    I’ll never forget the “Mexican” restaurant around the corner from me in the Buckhead area of Atlanta that was owned by a very nice gentleman from….New Delhi.

    His cooks were all Mexican, though.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    But Baronius, isn’t the kind of racism which Cindy and Zedd and Moonraven display – racism born of self-righteous elitism – inherently ignorant? At the very least they’re ignorant of how their supposedly enlightened beliefs are indistinguishable from other forms of racism.

    Racism and cultural elitism is so strongly ingrained in internationalist socialism that most of them aren’t even aware it’s there.

    Dave

  • Ninja

    “American culture is extraordinary in its acceptance of other cultures.”

    Try wearing a beard and a turban the next time you go to the airport…

  • moonraven

    Ah, now the Alzheimers Kid, Nalle, starts in poor-mouthing because he wasn’t able to finish graduate school.

    So he has it in for anyone who speaks and writes English and/or has a PhD.

    If I am a racist, lardass, you are the Easter Bunny.

    I simply reject all of the invaders who arrived on Turtle Island and killed 90 million Native Americans.

  • moonraven

    Ninja: Or a tee shirt with Arabic letters on it that say Eat at Ahmed’s Shwarma Shop.

    Ignorant, racist pigs. That’s what the gringos are.

  • Baronius

    Dave, I see where you’re going with that thought. I don’t know if Zedd is a racist due to some international socialist ideology. I believe that she’s been through some kind of cultural studies program. Even a healthy, balanced belief system would be eroded by that.

    As for the other two, you may be right.

    But it’s not ignorance necessarily. I’d call it inconsistency. There are only two kinds of people – those who lump people into groups and those who don’t. We don’t.

  • Baronius

    Ninja, that’s a very specific example you gave. Try the national attire of any culture that hasn’t blown up four jets. For that matter, try a beard and turban anywhere but an airport, and you’ll be fine.

    Now, wear a crucifix in a Libyan airport. There’s a test for you.

    Or better yet, try this one. Two guys, one in a turban, one in a Yankees hat, both in Logan Airport. See which one gets more abuse.

  • Ahmadinejad

    “And Nalle, Yes, Iranians are white–but since nobody in the US knows the difference between Arabs and Persas or between Arabic and Farsi, it’s the PERCEPTION that Iranians are NOT white that is generalized in the US that inspires hate.”

    Yeah americans hate iranians because they “percieve” them as being non-white. What a genius theory.

    Not the fact that the iranian parliament shouts “Death to America”. I think the average american would hate iran because they are MUSLIM. Islam wants to rule the world and reduce christians and jews to dhimmi’s. Last time I checked, hating islam has nothing to do with race. Seriously your looking for racism everywhere moonraven. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Ninja

    Baronius — good try, but…

    MESA, Ariz. — A man was convicted of murder in the slaying of a turbaned, bearded Sikh who prosecutors said was gunned down because he was mistaken for an Arab.

  • Ninja

    Ahmadinejad:

    “Last time I checked, hating islam has nothing to do with race.”

    But the ignorant must hate somebody and it helps if there is a race difference.

    During the 1930’s it was the Jews who were hated. Now it is the Palestinians and the Iranians.

    Who will be next?

  • Zedd

    Baronius,

    On occasion I read a small portion of someone’s post and comment. I hope that that is what you did in this case because you are not commenting on the entirety of my post. You couldn’t have gotten what you posted from what I said.

    In other words, what the heck are you talking about? My comments had nothing to do with knowing everyone’s race. I said….

    1. Iranians claim to be White but come in all shades

    2. Race is a social construct and has no biological bases anyway.

    3. Americans don’t know that Iranians call themselves White. They think that Iranians are Arabs so that treat them the same way that they treat all other non Whites that they don’t like.

    Now how does that fit with your comment?

  • Zedd

    Baronius,

    Let other people define how Americans relate to them. YOU are not the person to tell others how GREAT Americans are to them, as you are an American (I assume). Its only proper. Also it prevents people from rolling their eyes at your comments.

    Clavos,

    Enough with the Indian cooking Mexican food. You told that story twice before. I’m sure he had some illegals tied up in the back room frying away for 2cents an hour. Drop it already. How are you doing by the way? I hope your family is well. I haven’t picked on you in a number of days.

  • Ahmadinejad

    “But the ignorant must hate somebody and it helps if there is a race difference.”

    Well maybe “hate” is a strong word. I don’t know if your average american hates the iranian people. They certainly don’t care for the government. My statements about islam do stand. That is what the majority of muslims believe, that non-muslims should be dominated. It is true that race can increase animosity, but i really don’t think it is that much of a factor. A lot of people in iran and syria could easily pass for a european american. They mostly look different because they wear beards and ridiculous hats.

    To me it seems strange that people like Chavez get in bed with the Iranian president. History is littered with examples of people getting in bed with someone who later becomes their enemy. The U.S. gave weapons to the Taliban. Whoops, that was a mistake. Chavez and Iran are only “friends” because it is convenient. The U.S. is more of a threat at the current moment. But that may change in the future.

  • Zedd

    What Dave and Baronius don’t understand is how ethnocentrism works and how power combined with that tendency affects others.

    Dave you don’t understand White supremacy. You think its about uneducated yokels wearing sheets (yawn). Its an entire world view, propelled by the most normal “unintending” people, which says that the world is a certain way because of immense ignorance. This world view is what sustains the world as we have it now. Zimbabwe is what it is because of yes a silly old man but more so because of this philosophy. The structure of the world is as it is because of this perspective that is so pervasive that YOU don’t know it exists. You think it is the way things ARE.

    So the ignorance lies with you. Sorry to say. Especially since you have grown mild and more introspective these days.

    Baronius other people do see the evil that we commit and yes they do chant “death to us”. They are angry and are fed up. Because you don’t see what we do and have done, you think they are evil for being angry and fed up with us. It is YOU who is ignorant.

    Imagine the African slave who for the entirety of his life he thought rational, intelligent thoughts. Imagine that he encounter many whites who he was much more superior to intellectually but had to for his entire existence pretend to be less then in order to survive. He had to play dumb in order to make Whites happy. Well guess what, you want the rest of the world, including Iran, to play dumb; to not want what you have or want. You want everyone to take their role as less than in silence. Those who speak up and say “I don’t think so”, you label evil (a la Chavez, Qaddafi, Malcolm X even Gandhi and Mandela at the time of their defiance). Like the African was lynched for being an uppity nigger.

  • Zedd

    Ahmadinejad

    Americans don’t even know what Islam is. Let it go. We all live here. We know our country well. Americans don’t know much about anything other than what makes them money, sports and TV. Lets all be honest.

  • Ninja

    Ahmadinejad:

    “the majority of muslims believe that non-muslims should be dominated.”

    Did you get that from watching Fox news?

    If the majority of Muslims believe that, how have they manifested it over the past 100 years?

    Fox News Channel will reinforce your propaganda Saturday night by replaying the mushroom cloud video they used in 2003 to convince the ignorant of the WMD’s in Iraq.

    Be sure to tune in and get your indoctrination.

  • troll

    Zedd says – *Lets all be honest.*

    ok…let’s – and in keeping with your broad bruch as well:

    ‘All female black Texan sociology graduates are nincompoops.’

  • troll

    (brush – of course)

  • Zedd

    Troll,

    I haven’t heard the word nincompoop in ages. Takes me back to the Sunday afternoons of my youth when they showed the old movies on Channel 11. The person who was called a nincompoop was the one who was always right but the know-it-all wise guy felt compelled because of their more brash, cocky manner to put him down (insecurity I think it was). Abbot and Costello come to mind or some over muscular gangster guy with no brains. Thanks for the memories. Also, I’ve never seen it in writing. Thanks for the education old guy.

  • Zedd

    off course – off course.

    – nincompoop

  • Franco

    Excellent points, well thought out, and well said!

    I wish more people had dominion over “dynamic inconsistency” as you have shown, and are willing to have all options not only on the table, but understood.

    “War within Iran’s borders would be very tough for the US to engage in, even with unlikely multilateral support.”

    I agree. No boots on the ground in Iran. As for muttilateral support, its forming and its growing. They had to put a mussslon on the French President last week.

    There is the setting of the stage, if it is not already set, (extremely heavy US navel deployment and activity in the region) to attack Iran from a distance by air and taking out all known Iranian nuclear sites and development centers.

    I would think that this option would have considerable time pressure on it to act before too much Iranian nuclear development has been completed with power plants with nuclear fuel rods installed in them. When hit with missiles, the potential for radioactive fall out will exist. Remember the Chernobyl disaster in Russia.

    “we must continue to presevere in Iraq, and we must beat back any Iranian forces that we encounter there with our full military might.”

    I agree. It could be the very reason why that Senate voted this week to classify the Iran Elite Guard as “terrorists” in setting a formal stage for this.

    Additionally, attacking Iran nuclear facilities from a distance will intensify the movement of Iranian Guardsmen outside of Iranian borders, and very likely produce an Iranian aerial attack on US troop basis, a ships in the region. Israelis Arrow missile defense system, along with the US’s would likely be fully activated in this engagement.

    The object is only to destroy Iranian nuclear programs. The Iranians would determine the length of this conflict break out by how much they would continue to retaliate. Since the US is only left with an air engagement, which can be dialed up to completely devastating, forcing the Iranian leaders calls off the dogs.

    Hideous, yes! Dynamic inconsistency, No!

  • Ninja

    Franco —

    “The Iranians would determine the length of this conflict break out by how much they would continue to retaliate”

    Yes, but consider Iraq. War is what happens while you plan what colors to put in your “Mission Accomplished” banner. Keep in mind that air power alone does not win wars. It takes boots on the ground and they are not there.

    However, it is possible the same fools might start a war against a country that hasn’t started a war in centuries. All it takes is some warmongering propaganda. The sheep always follow.

    This situation is reminiscent of when Hitler attacked Poland claiming that, “Poland has always had the secret intention of exploiting every opportunity to do us harm.”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    ‘All female black Texan sociology graduates are nincompoops.’

    My observation has been that four-year degrees in sociology and education actually lower the IQ of the recipient substantially.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    What Dave and Baronius don’t understand is how ethnocentrism works and how power combined with that tendency affects others.

    It could be argued that this is because we live in the US where such ethnocentrism is part of the distant past.

    Dave you don’t understand White supremacy. You think its about uneducated yokels wearing sheets (yawn).

    If you redefine white supremacy then tell us we don’t understand it, it’s kind of hard to keep up. What you’re talking about isn’t normally called ‘white supremacy’, it’s something considerably more complex.

    Its an entire world view, propelled by the most normal “unintending” people, which says that the world is a certain way because of immense ignorance. This world view is what sustains the world as we have it now.

    I’m not familiar with this world view. It sounds vaguely like something out of the 19th century. Your description is vague, but I certainly don’t subscribe to it, whatever it is.

    Baronius other people do see the evil that we commit and yes they do chant “death to us”. They are angry and are fed up. Because you don’t see what we do and have done, you think they are evil for being angry and fed up with us. It is YOU who is ignorant.

    The problem here is that you’re a moral relativist. There are actually objective standards of good and evil. The dangerous world view here is the one which denies that fact.

    Imagine the African slave who for the entirety of his life he thought rational, intelligent thoughts. Imagine that he encounter many whites who he was much more superior to intellectually but had to for his entire existence pretend to be less then in order to survive. He had to play dumb in order to make Whites happy.

    I don’t have to imagine it. I’ve read the Narrative of Frederic Douglas. You might want to give it a look.

    Well guess what, you want the rest of the world, including Iran, to play dumb; to not want what you have or want. You want everyone to take their role as less than in silence. Those who speak up and say “I don’t think so”, you label evil (a la Chavez, Qaddafi, Malcolm X even Gandhi and Mandela at the time of their defiance). Like the African was lynched for being an uppity nigger.

    No, Zedd. We want them to play by certain civilized rules and observe certain basic human rights. To condone evil is to endorse evil.

    Dave

  • http://www.nwe.ufl.edu/~stripp/2504/pratt.html Cindy D

    Baronius–

    You don’t have a comprehension of what I was saying. Therefore, you are offended by something you aren’t actually grasping. I am not simply talking about America. I am talking about the “dominating culture” in regards to colonialism, imperialism, slavery etc. The dynamic I am speaking about is insidious and has been part of “human” history since the first dominating culture moved against any subordinate culture.

    This dynamic is something inherent in what humans do. It is inherent in situations where there are asymetrical power relationships. It is insidious even in teacher-pupil relationships.

    To me, this is an important concept to grasp. Unless we can see it in ourselves we don’t have much power to change. It is the voice of the autoethonographer–and thus, my appreciation for Erna’s comment– that allows us to begin to see the subordinated culture’s perspective (if we even have such an interest–there are some who won’t).

    If you wish to understand my comment, I highly recommend reading Mary Louise Pratt’s Arts of the Contact Zone. Ms. Pratt is a Silver Professor and Professor of Spanish and Portuguese Languages and Literature at NYU.

    You might first want to check with Steve Martin (one of my favorite comedians, by the way) to see what he has to say about the rest of the program (literacy, as a point in this example) of scholarly study.

    Dave–

    Ditto what I said to Baronius. And I will add that I am in no way a Marxist. And now, there isn’t much I can say about your comment that I am a self-righteous, elitist racist that won’t speak loudly enough for itself.

    For any one else interested. Arts of the Contact Zone is a brilliant read (of only a few pages)and very worthwhile.

  • Clavos

    “However, it is possible the same fools might start a war against a country that hasn’t started a war in centuries.”

    That assumes that it’s always been the “same” country, with the same basis for its set of principles and objectives.

    It’s not.

  • Ninja

    All it takes is warmongering propaganda to fool the people into a war. The sheep always follow.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Cindy, the basic flawed assumption you’re operating from is that there is any logical reason to oppose the ‘dominant culture’ and advance the interests of the ‘subordinate cultures’. No one benefits from that agenda except for international do-gooders who are basically parasites.

    Dave

  • Franco

    #71 – Ninja

    “Yes, but consider Iraq. War is what happens while you plan what colors to put in your “Mission Accomplished” banner. Keep in mind that air power alone does not win wars. It takes boots on the ground and they are not there.”

    Ninga-

    I have consider Iraq, that is why I clearly stated The object is only to destroy Iranian nuclear programs. In this case, air power alone is in fact more then enough to complete this objective. Your comment reflects objectives confused with Iraq and regime change, which dose require boots on the ground. I am not suggesting that.

    “This situation is reminiscent of when Hitler attacked Poland.”

    Yes it is, but from what I consider opposite perspectives. When taking into consideration today’s complex state and non-state alignments and what this creates in strange bedfellows, and the over all course of technologies, IMO it is the Iranian leadership who is Hitler, and the US who is Poland. I vote for not letting this history repeat itself.

    “All it takes is some warmongering propaganda. The sheep always follow.”

    What warmongering propaganda? What sheep? Based on the actions, beliefs, direction, and attitudes of the Iranian leadership today, (all information you can obtain outside the US) if you believe that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is not going to be a problem, I can not share your perspective. I base my position not solely on the US position, but on the overwhelming concerns of the worlds greater westernized cultures which includes the greater EU, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Middle East countries who are majority Sunni.

    Or are you suggesting that Bush has got them all following him like sheep?

  • http://none g. Anton

    Someone should write an article with the title “Why We Can’t Live With A Nuclear United States of America”. You could start it off with a picture of our brain-damaged, alcoholic President with his finger on the red button.

  • Ninja

    Franco:

    “are you suggesting that Bush has got them all following him like sheep?”

    Only the brainwashed, the ignorant, and foreign leaders who want to curry favor with the US government to enable them to continue to tap into the deep pockets of the US Treasury, i.e., the American taxpayers. Foreign leaders don’t want to be cut off from the military aid and equipment they get from the US military-industrial complex.

    So, if you speak of other governments following him like sheep, YES.

    But, if you speak of the people who live in those countries, NO.

    The vast majority of the people of the world do not want the US to attack Iran.

    The reason we have problems in the Middle East is because the US media is much more effective than Joseph Goebbels ever was.

  • http://www.nwe.ufl.edu/~stripp/2504/pratt.html Cindy D

    “…the basic flawed assumption you’re operating from is that there is any logical reason to oppose the ‘dominant culture’ and advance the interests of the ‘subordinate cultures’. No one benefits from that agenda except for international do-gooders who are basically parasites.”

    Dave–

    You have as much idea of what I’m talking about as I have of what you are talking about. What is an “international do-gooder”?

    Sometimes I spend time hitting my head against a wall. It is almost always wasted time. If you would prefer to respond to whatever is inside your own head instead of me you are welcome to. But, it precludes communication.

    I gave you a link. I can’t read it for you.

  • Baronius

    Cindy, maybe there’s a chance that we comprehend each other.

    I get the idea of a dominant culture. But it carries with it an implied negative judgement. The dominant culture in your examples only does evil things, and doesn’t care about others. That may be the right paradigm sometimes, but it doesn’t necessarily apply here.

    I suspect that there are a lot of Americans who don’t see themselves as the dominant culture – not because they’re unaware of how rednecky they are, but because they’re part of a subculture. Their instinct is not necessarily to dominate. There are also Americans who encourage multiculturalism. We’re not a monolith.

    On the other side, Persian Shiite culture isn’t interested at all in understanding us. It’s been a fairly isolationist culture for centuries. The more progressive elements have been silenced or they emigrated. They’re much more inclined to speak with one voice.

    I’m not passing judgement in either depiction. I’m just saying that your model may not fit this case. There’s an old saying that, to the person who has a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. I sense that thinking in sociology. There are cases where the “dominant” culture is right, and the “subordinate” culture is oppressive.

    But thank you; now I have a good idea of what it feels like to be condescended to.

  • handyguy

    Cindy –
    You are arguably the best political writer on this site. Have you written articles? If not, please do so! Thanks for raising the level of the conversation, and for calling some of the usual loudmouths on their discussion-killing, closed-ears, closed-mind approaches.

  • Clavos

    “…and for calling some of the usual loudmouths on their discussion-killing, closed-ears, closed-mind approaches.”

    All of whom, of course, are on the right side of the aisle….

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You have as much idea of what I’m talking about as I have of what you are talking about. What is an “international do-gooder”?

    The problem, Cindy, is that I know exactly what you’re talking about and you will likely never understand what I’m talking about.

    I gave you a link. I can’t read it for you.

    Sorry, what link was that? You provided a link in your response to Baronius. I read it. It was like a bad flashback to grad school for me. I’ll eventually recover.

    Dave

  • bliffle

    The headline “Why We Can’t Live With A Nuclear Iran” draws me here often, but I never find the promised reason. Instead, what I get are bald assertions and tenuous arguments.

    Putting that aside for the moment, it seems to be utter strategic madness to contemplate air attacks on Iranian nuclear installations with no troops to secure sites after bombing. this is the consequence of Bush’s poor judgements in the past.

  • Franco

    #80 — Ninja

    ” Only the brainwashed, the ignorant, and foreign leaders who want to curry favor with the US government to enable them to continue to tap into the deep pockets of the US Treasury, i.e., the American taxpayers. Foreign leaders don’t want to be cut off from the military aid and equipment they get from the US military-industrial complex.”

    You make some good points. So can you name three foreign governments that fit your premis (without siting Israel) so we can look at whether these countries do in fact support your premis?

    “The vast majority of the people of the world do not want the US to attack Iran.”

    This may be true but (1) it is an assumption on your part. (2) This is Iran not Iraq. (3) Only fools follow the masses who base resoning on emotions absent of critical facts.

    If what you say is true, and you are going to use the worlds masses in support of your position, what then makes the majority of the people of the world qualified to know what should or should not be done about Iran and the bomb? Name specifically in brief any in-depth analysis by the worlds masses on critical facts that supports their assertion as being sound.

    Maybe this will help in understanding who you are referring to when you say the brainwashed and ignorant

    “The reason we have problems in the Middle East is because the US media is much more effective than Joseph Goebbels ever was.”

    The problems in the Middle East have nothing to do with the US media. I base my position on the following two facts.

    1. The US media is a mixed bag of both hawks and doves and everything in-between.

    2. All those who listen to US media can use the internet to check out any other news media in the world. The German people under Joesef Goebbels propaganda machine never had that option.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The headline “Why We Can’t Live With A Nuclear Iran” draws me here often, but I never find the promised reason. Instead, what I get are bald assertions and tenuous arguments.

    Headlines are like that, bliffle. They’re designed to draw you here, not necessarily to make sense.

    The truth is we CAN live with a nuclear Iran. It’s not that much worse than things are with a nuclear Korea a Nuclear Pakistan a Nuclear Israel and god knows how many Russian nukes gone missing in the last 20 years.

    Yes, Iran’s current leadership wants to lead Islam and create a glorious new Empire. You don’t build empires by nuking people. They may be murderous, fanatical, terroristic bastards, but they do have objectives which make sense if you accept their premises.

    Frankly, Israel is far more likely to use a nuke in the next couple of years than Iran or anyone else currently developing them with the possible exception of North Korea who probably aren’t a concern because they know how hard China will slap them down if they use one.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    OK….

    Where is Dave Nalle and what have you done with him? This is getting creepy.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Zedd,

    No white supremecy here. Incidentally, I am Jewish. You and others here might be very suprised to hear this, but as a Jew, I’ve had to deal with prejudice my entire life. From a girlfriend whose Italian parents felt the need to tell me it was “OK” that I was Jewish, to last week when the next door neighbor was telling me that despite a common acquaintance’s Jewishness, he wasn’t as cheap as they had expected (this neighbor didn’t realize I was also jewish).

    Sure, this isn’t cross burining on my yard or anything like that. However a sobering point for Jews like myself is that while here in the US, being Jewish won’t necessarily get you killed (just annoyed), it may very well in places like Iran.

    Note that growing up with this hasn’t made me feel “white.” I don’t identify with racism, because I have felt the effects first hand.

    My feelings about Iran having nukes are based entirely on two things: Iran’s stated interest in wiping Israel off the map (which they can do pretty easily with a nuke), and Iran’s actions within the borders of Iraq, resulting in more American and Iraqi deaths, and a much more difficult transition from tyranny to democracy (or something close) for the Iraqis.

    I happen to think that if after taking the time to understand the platform of Ahmadinejad and his leaders, and a close look at their actions, it has to be obvious to anyone, save for the most ardent appeasers, that this man should not have nukes. If you want to cast me as a white supremist for making this judgement, you simply aren’t dealing in reality.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Bliffle,

    Read paragraphs 4-7 where I detail the specifics of why Iran should not have nukes.

  • moonraven

    It’s ALL about Racism–Racism is the belief that only white folks have the right to accumulate WEALTH.

    Follow the money, down the trail of Racism.

    You folks are completely fucked.

  • Reza Palahvi

    Obnoxious,
    I don’t believe that Iran has a record of killing Jews. My neighbors were Jewish Iranians and their son even served in the Iranian army.

    I wonder why the Iranians want to have nukes?

    Could it be that since they are virtually surrounded by the American military they feel they need some sort of bargaining chip? Last time I checked a map, IRAQ and Afghanistan both border Iran, so whomever said we didn’t have boots on the ground, must not have boots or doesn’t know where the ground is…..

    Let’s take Racism off the table for a second.
    I agree it is simply the Obnoxiousness of the dominating culture as Cindy so appropriately points out. All you have to do is read the postings of Nalle, his sideKICK Clavos and others for awhile round here and you will see it in action.

    Iranians are too backward, too stupid and too fanatically religious to have access to nuclear weapons. That is the general sentiment of most Obnoxious Americans, who are too stupid to realize that we already have boots on the ground.

    OA: what would you say if your Italian neighbor said to an BLOND HAIRED BLUE EYED IRANIAN (yeah there’s a lot of those around) I don’t mind that you are Muslim?

  • The Obnoxious American

    Reza,

    As I’ve said before, I know Iranian Jews as well. They came here after the Islamic Revolution in Iran. It’s true that there are Jews that live in Iran now, although I’d argue (citing the following wikipedia entry) that living in Iran isn’t such a great experience for them.

    As far as your second point regarding this stance emerging from an (obnoxious) dominant culture… first I think that nuclear anti proliferation is a good idea for all, not just Iran. However, notice that I am not writing this article talking about other countries noted previously as nuclear powers, namely India, Pakistan, etc. They have shown that they are responsible with nuclear capability. Perhaps the backdrop of Ahmadinejad’s vociferous comments on genocide and wiping certain countries off the map might have something to do with the imagined paradox in my viewpoints?

    Given the awesome power of nuclear bombs, this isn’t something that we should be allowing people to have, then revoking once they have proven to be irresponsible. In fact, we couldn’t take away a nuclear power’s weapons even if we wanted to, without likely engaging in nuclear warfare to do it. And this is precisely why this is such an important issue.

    If you are questioning whether the US as a dominant culture has the right to do this? A good theoretical, but who cares. Unless you really believe that the world would be better off with Iran as a nuclear power (the contrary viewpoint of which is the point behind this article), what difference does it make? Besides, the UN and the EU have made it clear (see the links in the article) that they agree with us that a nuclear Iran would not be good for the world.

    Given UN and EU support, your and Cindy’s attempts to color this as a US only (or dominant culture) desire to ensure Iran doesn’t have nukes is faulty. The world does not want Iran to have nukes.

    As far as your last statement, it’s clear you have issues reading the entirety of my points. What would I say if my ex’s parents were racist to someone else (of Iranian, African or any other descent)? I think that would be as f***ed up as when they were racist to me.

    It’s funny that when I raise a legit question about Iranian nuclear capability, one that has been raised and answered in the halls of the UN, you attempt to color me as some sort of a racist, then failing that an islamophobe. Sorry, you are knocking on the wrong door.

    Your actions hint at your own personal prejudice against any American viewpoint no matter how much sense it makes. And it makes me wonder whether you’d be so against what I am saying where this the Islamic Republic of the United States of America.

  • Reza Palahvi

    Of course no one wants a nuclear Iran, it would only cause a arms race in the middle east and probably provide that most extreme of fanatical self-hating states to use their own first as a pre-emptive strike. However, I stand by my statements anyway and I’m not self-loathing American.

  • moonraven

    I don’t want ANY nuclear countries.

    When the US gets rid of ALL its nuclear weapons, it can start telling other countries they should not have them.

    Until then, kep your fucking mouth SHUT.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Reza,

    One other point:

    “Iranians are too backward, too stupid and too fanatically religious to have access to nuclear weapons. That is the general sentiment of most Obnoxious Americans, who are too stupid to realize that we already have boots on the ground. ”

    Your words. Nowhere in my article did I make any such statement to that effect. In fact, in my article (which with every new post of yours, you prove again and again that you have not read it) talks about how the Iranian people don’t agree with the stance of the government on the nuke issue, and I even talk about how we need to support the Iranian people which trying to stop the Iranian government from gaining nukes.

    I’m not sure what nationality you are from, but you are showing yourself to be more ignorant than those supposed “obnoxious Americans” you keep on talking about.

  • The Obnoxious American

    MR,

    Don’t be so silly, if the US didn’t have nukes, they wouldn’t be in a position to push for non-proliferation. Some other country would be the dominant player and it would be their adgenda. I know this idea titilates you (and that idea titilates me ggrrrrowwwrrrr), but just think about what you are advocating…

    Whenever there is a vacuum of power, the most aggressively violent force will fill it. So there wouldn’t be a bunch of libertarians or freedom loving Mexicalis taking over. It would likely be the Chinese or Russia or worse taking the lead. I don’t need to go into detail on what the world would look like in that scenario, but suffice to say, as happy as you are now with the current state of affairs, you’d be even less thrilled were the US not in the dominant position.

    Thank your stars that the United States happens to be in the dominant position right now. It won’t always be this way, and when things change, there won’t be a benevolent super power waiting in the wings to take over.

    I know, here I go using fear to push my neocon adgenda right? Or perhaps I am just telling it like it is.

  • moonraven

    REMF might just be right.

    I, for example, have an honorable discharge from the US Army Reserve.

    It used to hang over the toilet.

  • The Obnoxious American

    MR,

    Actually, you are proving my point. My “borough” has some of the strictest gun control laws out there and despite this, the number of shootings. So what are you saying exactly.

    Saying that I have been diagnosed as a lunatic by you and your ilk is actually quite a compliment. I’d send you roses in return but I don’t know the address.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Wow, do you hear that REMF? So by your logic, you would take whatever MR has to say as genuine. Scary.

  • Ninja

    Franco:

    “Only fools follow the masses who base resoning (sic) on emotions absent of critical facts.“

    What emotions and critical facts do you have that others do not have?

    “what then makes the majority of the people of the world qualified to know what should or should not be done about Iran and the bomb? “

    It’s simple. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
    — Abraham Lincoln

    “The problems in the Middle East have nothing to do with the US media.”

    You must be asleep.

    The “war on terror” slogan has been exploited to the utmost by the US media. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy.

    Only a bunch of fools would declare war on a tactic and then decimate a country thereby creating the thousands of new enemies it did not have before it took its “war on terror” to a country which was not responsible for 9-11. .

    The bottom line — Is America better off now than it was on March 1, 2003?

    Is it?

    Now you want to double down?

  • Reza Palahvi

    I read your article.
    Also read your mind subtly.

    “Iran has designs to be the super power of the Middle East (and eventually the world). Such aspirations are not necessarily appreciated by its neighbors.”

    What neighbors?
    Saudi Arabia? Our friends?
    Afghanistan, Iraq? What other neighbors and how do know they want to be a world power?

    Ridiculous.

  • Ninja

    Franco:

    “Only fools follow the masses who base resoning (sic) on emotions absent of critical facts.“

    What emotions and critical facts do you have that others do not have?

  • Ninja

    Franco:

    “what then makes the majority of the people of the world qualified to know what should or should not be done about Iran and the bomb? “

    It’s simple. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
    — Abraham Lincoln

  • Ninja

    Franco:

    “what then makes the majority of the people of the world qualified to know what should or should not be done about Iran and the bomb? “

    It’s simple. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
    — Abraham Lincoln

  • The Obnoxious American

    Reza,

    As mentioned earlier in this discussion, and as described in this PINR report Iran obtaining nuclear capability would change the balance of power in the middle east. Saudi Arabia’s Prince Al-Faisal said as much saying that Iranian nuclear capability was dangerous to the middle east – of course noting that Israel’s nuclear capability is at root of the issue.

    While one can debate the legitimacy and extent of Israel’s nuclear program, what is fact is that Israel has not used or weilded any such capability. That the very existence of the Israeli nuclear programs is denied, is an example of the level of discretion the Israelis employ with WMDs. (Provided that the Israelis indeed have them).

    I don’t see Shimon Peres or Ehud Olmert preaching destruction of the Palestinian people, Iran or any other country for that matter. The reality is the Israelis would love for there to be peace.

    Contrast that with Ahmadinejad’s behavior and ask why if after 30+ years of supposed Israeli nuclear capability and basic peace in the region why does Iran need a nuke?

    It’s obvious to me that Ahmadinejad wants nuclear capability for more than just peaceful nuclear energy. Can we all at least agree with that?

    And if we can, then the question is why would we allow him to have that capability knowing he will likely use it to gain more control for his regime?

  • moonraven

    OA shows his utter ignorance yet agaiin!

    Faisal is not in power in Saudi.

    The Israeli’s have a buclear reactor at Dimona–which sends radiation all over the West Bank and Jordan due to the prevailing wind pattern being west to east and the DAILY winds in the region.

    Israel has THREATENED to use nuclear weapons against Iran. Just WHOSE nuclear weapons might those be? India’s? Muslim Pakistan’s?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    You’ll have to lay off the author of the article for a bit, Marthe, while I bring some news. Debkafiles reports that the entire Russian team of experts at Bushehr has packed up and gone home. They flew out of Dodge on 28 September.

    According to Debkafiles there are three possibilities;

    1. There is a problem between the Iranians and the Russians
    2. There will be a sudden attack on Iran
    3. Iran will launch a sudden attack.

    Fun, ain’t it?

    The last time I saw something like this happen was either before the Yom Kippur War or the Six Day War.

    There are other Signs of Things Happening, but I’ll let you ponder why the Russkies took off from Bushehr in a hurry – assuming they actually did.

  • The Obnoxious American

    MR,

    As far as Israel threatening to use it’s nukes, are you talking about this year when Israel threatened to use it’s nukes against Iranian nuclear facilities? Cause and effect, Hello???

    In 30+ years of Israel supposedly having a weapon, they’ve not threatened or used it. But add in Iran preaching the destruction of Israel and developing a nuclear capability, and of course Israel will say that in response.

    As far as this nuclear reactor spreading radiation, sorry, but the Israelis wouldn’t do this because 1) the fallout would hurt them too 2) they are smart and know how to setup reactors properly and 3) they simply don’t need to do that.

    If the Israelis have nukes, the US provided them. If anything, what is happening with Iran is ample reason why and not the reverse. Let’s not get into the tired specifics of Israels long history of getting attacked by every neighboring country.

    That said, you (all of you) never answered my question, do you really believe that Ahmadinejad plans to use nuclear capability for peaceful only purposes?

  • Baronius

    TOA, you may get REMF’s point today, but you’ll need to be reminded of it tomorrow, and the day after that.

    You mentioned the Saudis – I’d bet that the top-of-the-food-chain Sunnis really aren’t happy about a nuclear Iran.

  • Reza Palahvi

    Depends on what you think peaceful purposes is, is.

    I think he want to generate some electricity AND a level playing field.

    As my Grand dad used to say, it’s better to trade camels with your friends, but it’s more profitable to trade them with your enemies.

  • http://www.yahoo.com Kevin Roberts

    I heard that Daniel Imperato is the candidate that the Christian Conservatives want to support for 2008

  • Diogenes of Guayaquil

    Moon, something worth noting, racism goes all ways. Hating whites is just as racist as hating blacks, which is just as racist as hating Iranians. So, calling all gringos “Ignorant, racist pigs” is pretty ignorant and racist of you.

    Also, (at this point I start to address everyone) what I’d consider is that the problem Americans have with Iran is their ideological, not their racial differences. The differences in religion are worth mentioning, but the fact that Iran’s leaders project an image hostile to Americans probably contributes to American’s fear of Iran, which in turn becomes hate. The similar fact that Israel projects itself as a democracy and allied of the US also helps Americans like it and stand by it. As a Jew, I happen to agree with this. Alan M. Dershovitz has written some good books on the subject as well.

    Also, I’m sure it would thrill you to hear that nuclear reactors don’t automatically create radiation. They create very, very hot water, though. And Israel has plenty of technology, so I’m sure they do keep as many safeguards as possible. Its also worth knowing that given Israel’s size, they can’t use nukes anywhere nearer than, say, central Egypt, far Syria, or far Jordan, without hurting themselves with fallout as well. Their history also gives us reason to believe they wouldn’t attack their neighbors. In all Israel’s wars, two, including the recent Lebanon war, haven’t been purely self-defense. Israel took the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt respectively back in 1967 because they were used as staging areas. And, Hezbollah, operating form Jordan, has been launching missles into Israel for years, on Syrian and Iranian money. Israel also accepted this treaty which would have left Israel as the non-contiguous state, in the interest of statehood and peace. In response, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem said to wipe Israel off the map.

    So, done with that, now… I think Iran should have nuclear energy, but they should not produce their own fuel. Graham Allison has reccomended a plan that needs more mention; all nations suspend operation of centrifuges for creating nuclear fuel, and these get moved to an international body. This body sells fuel at a discount, and is obligated by international law to supply all countries that want fuel. In turn, all countries must give back 100% of the waste, or face international retaliation, diplomatically, economically, or politically. This would allow Iran to have nuclear energy (their stated goal) and keep them from having nukes (the dangerous side effect).

    And, on the right to have nukes… Nuclear weapons are rather dangerous. Comparable, from the individual scale, to guns. Now, some nations have pretty clean sheets as far as dealing with international issues. Say what you will about the US’s domestic affairs, but, discounting the first use (without which the world wouldn’t have feared nukes as it does today) it hasn’t used them in any international conflict. It didn’t allow the cold war to become a hot war. It hasn’t had a national policy of genocide (Genocide of American Indians is more a Spanish thing (Latin American history is BRUTAL… You want slaughter and unfairness? Read that! Besides, most Native Americans lived south of the border, in the Aztec and Inca empires and in the lusher tropical regions.), and is far enough away that blaming the modern US for it is like blaming the Chinese, Byzantines, Italians, or Arabs (all of who had a hand in the Mediterranean trade, at different points) for causing the plague, or blaming modern Germany for the Holocaust, even.

    Anyways, I was going somewhere… Oh yes! Nukes are to nations kinda like what guns are to people. Now, some nations, like the US, Britain, and France, among others have been known to have relatively stable ideologies. Most of the people of those nations, since WWII (the time, historically, that set up most modern politics) have moved towards less military involvement in international conflict, and more diplomatic conflict resolution. Their policies have NOT included (in the time period specified above) wholesale slaughter of any group just for being that group (notable exception; the US and communists, though the fact they didn’t blindly go to war with Russia and China over communism shows they weren’t wholly irrational about it) and their use of nukes has been null. The US, it would seem, doesn’t even consider them an option. In contrast, Iran’s leadership has been increasingly militant on violence, genocide, and apparent irrationality. Moreover, surely some things, like freedom of expression, freedom of religion and creed, equal rights for all sexes and minorities, fair trials, and other such things have some value. Surely not all things can or should be written off as “their culture” and therefore be deemed untouchable. Surely some of these things have a value we could call objective, or call subjective but important enough, the current losses of these things in the US notwithstanding (I’d argue we can still revert some of the major losses, and should), we act as if they were objective. If this is the case, some nations, among the Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, and China and Russia and many more places all around the world, clearly look bad. These nations are the nations that should first be cut from the list. These nations have “bad sheets.” Surely, you can recognize some of these nations are working toward change, and others are stable enough that their having nukes is lamentable, but not earth-shakingly alarming. Others, like Iran with its bombast and its funding of terrorists, don’t even come off as that. These nations should not be held to the same standards as the US when it comes to nukes, any more than a known criminal who acts insane all the time should not be held to the same standards as someone who only is an ex-con when handing out guns (and of course, a perfect model citizen would be better, but if you go far enough back, no nation on earth is truly clean, so, we have to be relative.)

    Besides, nuclear weapons shouldn’t be passed around for their own sake. I mean, come on! That said, the only way to truly prevent someone from getting a nuke is to threaten with nukes or go to a conventional war. Diplomacy without threat of bombardment or war, in that scenario, is not a good guarantee, as the other nation could just delay negotiations and then announce it’s gone nuclear. I’m sure you’ll agree with me that 1) my logic is sound, and 2) threat of nuclear bombardment is preferable to conventional warfare.

  • Ninja

    Obnoxious:

    “do you really believe that Ahmadinejad plans to use nuclear capability for peaceful only purposes?”

    Of course not.

    He has two obvious objectives…

    1. He wants to lob his first three nuclear bombs at Israel to see if it has the chutzpah to shower his country with a dozen or more of its nuclear weapons.

    2. He wants to lob one or two at the US from an Iranian nuclear submarine off the coast of the US to test the will of the US to respond by firing a few of its 10,000 nuclear weapons at his country.

    Does that answer your question?

  • Zedd

    Diogenes of Guayaquil

    Actually what you are talking about is not racism its being prejudice or mean or ignorant or whatever…

    Native Americans do not have the political and economic power and so can not be racist against Whites. MR is not a racist against Whites. She cant be.

    However the term has been misused so much that your understanding of it is now acceptable to many. But that is not what racism is.

  • Diogenes of Guayaquil

    Or, he wants to give fissile material/waste to some guys to take it to the US and blow it up along with some sticks of dynamite/C4/conventional explosive of some sort in the downtown area of some major city at rush hour, and then deny responsibility. This is actually a concern with some Pakistani and mid-Asian (I can’t think of the name for the region of countries north of Iran, like Turkmenistan and Kazahkstan) reactors and a major concern with the North Korans. This is another reason nuclear non-proliferation no matter what is a good idea.

    Also, I’m pretty sure option 1 is more likely, though, thinking on it, its possible Iran itself won’t be as big a problem as the uproar that nations will cause around the region if Iran gets nukes. The ensuing arms race/wars is/are more worrisome. I mean, so far the North Koreans seem to have become somewhat saner now that they have nukes, not the other way around. Its possible (though unlikely) that Iran will quit being so inflammatory, should it receive nukes. Not that I’d like to know what they’d do with their increased world leverage, but its possible it’d just be that.

    On the other hand, I’d rather not take that gamble. Its hard to explain why without sounding like a bigot, which I’d rather not come off as, but the basic idea is that, if previous experience with groups with agendas and mentalities similar to the Iranian leadership’s serve for anything, increased power will be used, not stored for leverage purposes. Besides, I’d rather unfairly deny nuclear energy to someone than risk another nuclear bomb detonation in ANY major city, be it New York or Teheran or Tel Aviv or Mecca or whatever, or to have a city suffer the detonation and ensuing fallout of a dirty bomb. As far as saying we run the same risk with current powers, only one nuclear power is suspected of selling arms to non-nation groups, and that would be North Korea. Possibly Pakistan as well.

    I would like to highlight Graham Allison’s aforementioned idea as well. If the post was too long, the jist of it was; nations quit producing fuel and disposing of the waste themselves, but do all of this through an international group obligated by law to serve all nations equally, and authorized to intervene in nations that pocket any spent fuel (which includes weapons-ready material).

  • Diogenes of Guayaquil

    I had always understood these the other way around. Racism being the thought, and discrimination the action. Either way, the idea is the same. All hate is hate, regardless of who’s on what end. I’m sure you’ll grant me as much.

  • Diogenes of Guayaquil

    PS: and I’m sure you’ll grant me all hate is harmful too. As a result, EVERYONE, not just whites, or majorities, which would be a more appropriate term, should be ending their hate. The idea is the same.

  • Zedd

    Granted and so very true.

    You are right. Racism refers to culturally sanctioned beliefs, those however that are held by members of the dominant race in a society to sustain their superior status.

  • Zedd

    If Israel cant use nukes against countries near them, can we make the same argument for Iran. Would they be able to use nukes against Israel without hurting themselves, Palestinians and their Muslim brothers in the surrounding areas.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Zedd, I think you’re confusing Racism with Oppression. Racism is simply the favoring of one race over another or the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. It has nothing to do with majorities and minorities. What you’re confusing with racism is the oppression of one race or group by another, something which can happen on many bases, but is usually a case of the majority oppressing the minority regardless of what sets them apart from each other or defines them, be it race, economic status or other factors.

    Dave

  • Diogenes of Guayaquil

    While Iran couldn’t use nukes without also hitting Palestine or other Muslims, at least with the fallout, I wouldn’t put it beyond them to call those who die “martyrs” or “sacrifices” for some sort of “greater good.” That said, Israel is far enough away the fallout won’t hit Iran as badly if they nuked Israel as it would hit Israel if Israel nuked Egypt, Syria, Jordan, or Lebanon. They could nuke Iran with similar effects, if they wanted to. That they haven’t is evidence we can trust them as a nuclear power, assuming they have nukes in the first place (which they probably/almost certainly do).

  • Diogenes of Guayaquil

    Err… the “similar effects” noted in my above post are similar effects to the effects Iran would suffer were it to nuke Israel. This is to say, some fallout, maybe a slight increase in cancer rates. About as bad, or perhaps a tad less bad, as Western Europe had it when Chernobyl happened (which I hear wasn’t as bad as it could have been, but was pretty bad.)

  • troll

    …no one seems to have listened when Ahmadinejad pointed out that nukes violate religious law and thus wouldn’t be sought by the Islamic regime

  • bliffle

    OK, here are the 4 paragraphs OA recommends, including the lead-in reference to Gen. Abizaid:

    ” Retired Army General John Abizaid commented that the US could abide by a nuclear Iran. ”

    It’s gonna take some good arguments to go against this guy. So what do we get from OA?

    “Far be it for me to differ with an experienced and partial leader of the military, especially someone as esteemed as General Abizaid. And I don’t think the essence of what he said was wrong. Certainly the US could manage with just one more nuclear state.”

    So you agree? What’s your point? Or do you thnk it’s enough to be snarky?

    “However, I think the General misses the bigger point, and perhaps he made his comments with only his present self in mind. For example, Iran isn’t just another country. Iran has designs to be the super power of the Middle East (and eventually the world). Such aspirations are not necessarily appreciated by its neighbors. Following the development of Iranian nuclear capability, there is a distinct possibility that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey or other countries might engage in a Middle East version of a nuclear arms race in order to create a balance of power. Certainly, such an arms race is not something that the US or any country could or should abide, but at that stage, we’d be in a difficult position to stop it. Alternatively, Iran could simply use its new found nuclear power to lord over all of the other Middle East and neighboring nations, as they attempt to do currently without nukes. Either scenario is extremely destablizing for the Middle East, and the world considering our dependence on oil.”

    These are just wild imaginings, unsupported by any logic, history or corroborating opinion from any experts.

    “Other arguments have been made to further calm concerns of Iran becoming nuclear. One argument says that the US has it all wrong, Iran’s quest is for peaceful nuclear energy for the Iranian people. Another says that the nuclear goal is really to help Iran gain more respect on the world stage (as stated by their own UN Ambassador). These points are at odds with each other – if the goal is peaceful energy, how would that give Iran any more respect as a country? Alternatively, Iran is already one of the most feared nations in the region, and they have plenty of trading partners among UN members (as evidenced by the UN’s lack of willingness to support sanctions). So what kinds of additional respect are they trying garner exactly?”

    This is a strawman argument. You have (mis) represented some unknown persons contrary argument in the belief that you could easily demolish it. Oh, and you failed at the expected demolition.

    “The fact is that if Iran really wanted to expand its energy resources and independence, they could build oil refineries to process all of the oil resources that are abundant naturally within Iranian borders into petroleum. Right now, Iran runs the (unlikely) risk being cut off from gas by UN sanctions. Some postulate that the Iranians are not interested in this idea as oil is not a clean technology. However, I’ve not heard any plans from Iran to stop drilling for oil once nuclear energy generation has been achieved, so clearly the concern for the environment isn’t a driver in their quest to split the atom.”

    An unsupported assertion of a “fact” which is not in evidence, followed by the usual strawman.

    If you want to carry your point I humbly suggest that you start by avoiding these strawman arguments since you are no good at destroying them. You risk making a laughing stock of yourself because the strawman appears to be vanquishing you. Not because the man of straw is such a good warrior, but because your stabs and thrusts are so feeble and misdirected. Like Don Quixote you are unseated by the whirling blades of the windmill you attacked.

  • Ninja

    The best way to determine whether Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons is to allow it to happen. Then the first time Iran uses a nuclear weapon against anyone in a first strike, the country of Iran will be no more. Guaranteed.

    That solves the problem.

    That should also apply to any other country that uses a nuclear weapon in a first strike.

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    Racism is a type of oppression. Sorry no confusion here. Do some reading. Its clear that this is an area that you have no familiarity with. Oppression can come from any source. Oppression is not systemic necessarily. Oppression does not have to have a racial element.

  • Zedd

    Diogenes of Guayaquil

    Is there something that would substantiate your fears about Iran? Or do you just think that they are that crazy, wild, inferior intellectually, emotionally, and logically?

    What in their long history from 3200 BC tells you that YES they would nuke the entire region, including themselves in order to achieve their goals? Meaning that they are willing to kill themselves off and a majority of Muslims to reach this end (whatever it would be). Help me understand.

    What I have heard them say is that they don’t like how we do things (basically many of them have chanted “a pox on us”) and that they don’t think Israel has a right to exist. How do you get to where you are in your conclusions from that?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Apparently nobody wants to ponder the significance of Russians leaving a base they’re largely responsible for.

    Not even that nice Jewish boy from Guayaquil who holds a torch in the daytime to seek out truth…..

    The big issue here is not whether the Iranians have nukes or not; the big issue here is how will others react to the possibility of Iran having nukes.

    I suggest to you that the reaction may well be under way.

    I don’t look forward to a nuclear Iran. But at the same time, I do not look forward to what will be required to stop a nuclear Iran.

  • bliffle

    Ninja says “…Then the first time Iran uses a nuclear weapon against anyone in a first strike, the country of Iran will be no more. Guaranteed.”

    And thus we destroy Iran on behalf of a contrived incident created by, say, Israel. The USA has proven itself incapable of discerning the source of a problem in the past, so anyone with a little smarts could pull our trigger.

    This retaliation argument is so weak I’m surprised anyone advances it anymore. Nevertheless, I suspect that great numbers of the naive believe in it’s efficacy.

  • bliffle

    I’m not, a priori, against the proposition “Why We Can’t Live With A Nuclear Iran”, but the arguments presented here in favor of the proposition have been so weak as to be laughable. Shallowly conceived and apparently the product of paranoid delusion rather than logical consideration.

  • Cindy D

    Baronius- Re: #82

    To clarify: In asymmetrical power relationships the dominant is not always evil. It sounds that way because it applies to situations where that is often true (as in conquest or slavery). It sounds that way because it permits the nastiest attitudes and most brutal behavior. But, it also applies where the most well-meaning teacher cannot teach well because of the same dynamic.

    I wasn’t stating that we are evil, dominant Americans. I didn’t discount that it applies to the “other” side when/where they are in the same position.

    I was lamenting that when we (human beings) talk about people, make assumptions about people without any dialog from those people, our perception is flawed and we become capable then of easily dismissing the “humanness” of those we “talk about.”

    My point was a caution about the way we (as humans, not necessarily as Americans) are capable of becoming brutal and “inhuman”. It wasn’t an indictment of Americans.

    It was also a wish to hear more directly from Iranians, Muslims, etc.

    That is the basic gist of what I was trying to say.

    Here is a film I recommend: Children of Heaven.

    Dave- Re: #85

    If you understand the above, you’re comments to and about me seem outrageous in reply.

    OA- Re: #94

    “…Cindy’s attempts to color this as a US only (or dominant culture) desire to ensure Iran doesn’t have nukes is faulty.”

    For the record, I didn’t say anything about nukes and who should or shouldn’t have them.

    Handy- Re: #83

    Thanks Handy. I have appreciated your comments too. The time I spend here though is stolen. :-)

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    If you understand the above, you’re comments to and about me seem outrageous in reply.

    I don’t believe I made any comments about you. As for understanding what you last posted, it wasn’t exactly complex. Of course we should seek input from everyone before forming opinions of them. I wonder if you’re actually paying attention to the input we’re getting from much of the muslim world. For the process to work you need to listen with an open mind.

    Dave

  • The Obnoxious American

    Cindy,

    You said:

    “Dominant culture sees itself alone as relevant. The rest are invisible.”

    Agreed that you didn’t specifically talk about nukes or who should have them, but I took this to mean that you are saying the US can only see their view, and can’t fathom why Iran should have nukes, as if that were the problem.

    Maybe I am reading too much into what you are saying but I don’t think so, and I don’t agree with your point. In fact, I think the US, and maybe just a few other countries in the world are positioned to make that determination. You may engage in moral relativism, but look at this from a basic perspective – Iran’s president is calling for the destruction of another nation and actively trying to build nuclear capability (that several here to the left of me agree is NOT for peaceful purposes as is claimed), and the US (blinded by dominance or not) is asking them to stop. This is a lot more straightforward than it seems. Unfortunately the solution isn’t.

    Bliffle,

    Call my arguments strawmen all you like, opine that the conclusions are laughable, but you will need to add more to this discussion here than that to be taken seriously.

    Further, I disagree with your strawman label. Personally, I am starting to think people throw around the strawman charge when they don’t have a good argument in return.

    Iran’s history may be thousands upon thousands of peaceful years long, but that means nothing, just like the fact that the US was mostly forest 1000 years ago has no bearing on it’s position in foreign affairs now.

    Right now, this land in the middle east, with several millennia of peaceful history is being led by a man who is fomenting genocide against Israel, and is actively killing US soldiers in Iraq – outside Iranian borders. This is happening right now. And you think I am creating a strawman argument (strawman = fallicy or misrepresentation for those of you who are not as hip as bliffle)?

    Sir, I think you are the pot calling the kettle black. (no racism there Zedd :>)

    Zedd,

    I agree with Dave, racism is a personal thing, and can be in both directions. I understand where you are coming from, an oppressed group has hatred for their oppressors sure and that cannot be classified as racism. But in this day and age, I’d argue that African Americans and certainly Native Americans are not oppressed in this country. Sure, there are still individual instances of racism, some egregious and horrifying, but it’s illegal and not something that is systemic or tolerated by the masses that you would claim are doing the oppression.

    And as a result, people like MR who are no longer being oppressed as they were say 100 or more years ago, have no position to say things like she does (not worth repeating) and thus are racist.

    Regardless, I can promise you that I don’t view Iranians as a different species or not equal to myself. The leader of the Iranians on the other hand, that’s a different story. I made efforts in writing this article to ensure that I was specific about the fact that the leader of Iran is not in line with his people and any fair reading of the article will prove that out.

    Diogenes,

    I wanted to say I pretty much agree with everything you said except for the international body that manages nukes. And I would agree with you there if the UN was a better organization with real morals. But the international community has not earned any real credentials in fairness and cannot be trusted with any power at this stage of humanity, especially not nuclear.

    One day we may be able to assemble a real international community – this would serve the world and actually stop genocide and nuclear proliferation of all kinds. We just don’t have anything like that now and I don’t think nations are mature enough to seriously engage like that. Certainly the history of the UN and even the Iraq war has roots in this immaturity. The break between the IAEA and the UN member nations regarding Iran’s nuclear program is just another example of the issues inherent in the UN as an anti proliferation body.

    TOA

  • Cindy D

    Dave-

    Your beliefs contradict the facts. You merely need to scroll up to see comments you did make about me.

    “As for understanding what you last posted, it wasn’t exactly complex.

    What I last posted was the same thing I posted before in a slightly different way.

    And if it is so simple then why is it that you still don’t understand it yet. It’s not this simple:

    “Of course we should seek input from everyone before forming opinions of them.”

    This assumes we are capable of seeing their position as relevant. It assumes we don’t idealize ourselves and simply confirm this ideology with a utopian view of ourselves.

    But, we do this. I do this. Whether I like it or not. The fact that you do this (idealize your position and cling to a utopian view of your ideology), without even thinking about it, is evident in many of your beliefs posted as objective facts.

    And now here, I am talking about the US, as a nation. But, don’t make the assumption–again– (please) that I am comparing us to someone else. When I do you will be able to detect it by the mention of the some one else’s name.

    We say we are for justice and freedom. We call ourselves humanitarians. Yet we exploit each other, enslave each other, oppress each other, wage wars (like Iraq among others), design a system that favors 3% of our society and allows millions of children to live in poverty.

    Then we sing God Bless America with tears in our eyes.

  • Ninja

    Bliffle”

    “This retaliation argument is so weak I’m surprised anyone advances it anymore. Nevertheless, I suspect that great numbers of the naive believe in it’s efficacy.”

    I suspect great numbers believe in it’s efficacy because it worked during the Cold War for over 50 years. It is called M.A.D.

    “And thus we destroy Iran on behalf of a contrived incident created by, say, Israel. The USA has proven itself incapable of discerning the source of a problem in the past, so anyone with a little smarts could pull our trigger.”

    Which source are you referencing?

    What problem concerns you?

    China has a little smarts. Did it instigate a war between the Soviet Union and the US by a contrived incident?

    The Soviet Union has a little smarts. Did it instigate a war between China and the US by a contrived incident?

    The US has a little smarts. Did it instigate a war between the Soviet Union and China by a contrived incident?

    Pakistan has a little smarts. Did it instigate a war between the China and India by a contrived incident?

    India has a little smarts. Did it instigate a war between the China and Pakistan by a contrived incident?

    However, if you are insinuating that Israel may be more devious than the Soviet Union or China or Pakistan or India or the US, you may have a point.

  • Cindy D

    OA-

    Maybe I am reading too much into what you are saying but I don’t think so, and I don’t agree with your point.

    First you tell me what my point is and then you argue with it.

    That is an example of invisibility and irrelevance that has more to do with my point than anything I could further say.

  • Reza Palahvi

    “the leader of Iran is not in line with his people”

    Obnoxious

    They are now sir.

    After the way the obnoxious Americans treated their leader at Columbia and the UN, these Iranian citizens are now behind this buffoon.

    Again, you believe that Iranians should not have nuclear power, because you believe their leaders are “fomenting genocide” (paranoia?) and want to “rule the world”. Where are you getting this?

    Maybe your aren’t a racist, just prejudiced against Iranians.

  • Reza Palahvi

    “However, if you are insinuating that Israel may be more devious than the Soviet Union or China or Pakistan or India or the US, you may have a point.”

    Maybe not more devious, just more access and influence in the US. After all, they certainly had major influence in starting the Iraq war I’d say…

  • The Obnoxious American

    loll where to begin?

    Cindy,

    “First you tell me what my point is and then you argue with it.

    “That is an example of invisibility and irrelevance that has more to do with my point than anything I could further say.”

    My apologies if I was putting words in your mouth or not accurately describing your point. I hate when people do that to me, so I can empathize. That said however, was I actually mis-characterizing your point?

    Maybe I am not too bright but I think actually that I was right on in understanding your central point regarding dominant cultures. You accused me of doing a micro version of what you were charging dominant cultures, fair enough. However that would require my characterization to be wrong. If it is, please clarify, otherwise your response doesn’t really mean a whole lot does it?

    Ninja,

    Shame on you for buying wholesale into the “Israel is evil” line being fed to you by Osama sympathizers.

    Let me tell you a little bit about Israel.

    For one, the UN, and this means the international community, agreed to the state of Israel, it’s placement, it’s people. You can debate whether that is legit or not, but at this stage Israeli people have lived in an Israeli state, sanctioned by an international body for over 60 years. As a result, these people have the right to live, to exist, to not have rockets reigned down upon them from fanatics.

    For another, before the second intifada, Israel was receptive to Palestinians. A substantial part of the Israeli workforce (~10%) was Palestinian prior to the fanatics getting loose.

    As a Jew I can attest that part of the jewish culture is one of peace, not one of mutually assured destruction. Jews don’t believe in suicide bombing, which is why you just don’t see jewish suicide bombers. Having lived through genocide on multiple occasions in history, Jews don’t believe in genocide either, which is why they DON’T engage in genocide as is claimed by many palestinian terrorists (and echoed elsewhere).

    Israel is not, however, pacifist. Since the beginning of the current state of Israel, they have been attacked by virtually every neighbor because 1) these neighboring countries don’t believe in Israel’s right to exist and 2) charge Israel with oppressing the Palestinians.

    However, these same countries won’t actually do anything to help these supposed oppressed people, other than to pay their families if they blow themselves up along with a number of innocent civilians. Talk about a culture of death!

    Israel has made countless efforts to come to peace accords, outside of agreeing to right of return (which would essentially mean the end of Israel). And these overtures have not been returned in the slightest.

    You should be smacked for making such a negative suggestion as to the character of the Israelis, meanwhile defending the terrorists who are at this moment shooting rockets at israeli civilians. This is why Jews tend to view people like you as Anti Jew – because there is simply no other explanation for your twisted hatred of a democratic, free and capitalist country who is an American ally, in the middle east.

    I’m sure you will come back with a list of supposed injustices carried out by the Israelis, just like the fabricated Jena “massacre” and even the fabricated slaying of Mohammed al-Dura (which today’s WSJ writes about in an article called Palestinian Propaganda Coup).

    It’s funny that people like me who are not on the left are constantly charges as blindly following the Bush admin talking points, yet most lefties seem to be blindly following Islamic terror talking points like blind sheep! Check yourselves fool!

    Reza,

    I am convinced that you actually work for Ahmadinejad. Do you really think that the Iranian people are all of a sudden going to change their views and get behind Mahmoud simply because Lee Bolinger said some harse and true things to him while letting him speak at his college? Please.

    What I find interesting about you is that you agree that Ahmadinejad isn’t interested in peaceful use of nuclear technologies. This is in the face of Ahmadinejad saying otherwise to the international community. So in essense, you support the Iranian leader flouting international rule and lying to the world to boot? Then what’s your problem exactly with the Bush administration?

    As far as where I am getting Ahmadinejad as a fomenter of genocide, I’d say that giving speeches preaching to wipe Israel off the map certainly qualifies. Are you suggesting that he never said that?

    This is why I started this blog, in the hopes to get some of the more thinking challenged to start looking past their pre-conceived, brainwashed notions, such as Israel or the US being the bad guy, or that Iran has a right to nukes. Thank god for The Obnoxious American!

  • Ninja

    Obnoxious:

    “I started this blog, in the hopes to get some of the more thinking challenged to start looking past their pre-conceived, brainwashed notions,”

    Your problem is that your slanted, pre-conceived, brainwashed notions of the Middle East (from an “American” point of view) show why your hopes failed.

    If you were really an “obnoxious American” you would be ranting over such events as the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.

    Why was the USS Liberty attack swept under the Congressional carpet?

    Why cannot the Americans who survived the attack get the US Congress to have hearings on it after 40 years.?

    Let’s hear some disgust from an “obnoxious American” on this subject.

  • The Obnoxious American

    loll, so I scribe about a 3 written pages of text with actual responses to some of your comments and your best comeback is to dredge up some skirmish that happened 40 years ago?

    I will explain why no one cares about the attack on the USS liberty, because Israel isn’t trying to attack us now. In fact, they are one of the US’s main allies in the middle east. Is that really so difficult to fathom?

    It’s similar to how back 30 years ago, Saddam was an ally and eventually became an enemy. You realize that relationships are not static, don’t you?

    Listen Ninja, try and rake up any kind of fact that will help your anti jewish hatred spread, I really don’t care. But don’t preach to me about a “preconcieved brainwashed notions of the Middle East” when for one thing, i am hardly in the majority in my thinking even in the US, and secondly, if anything you are brainwashed into believing terrorism is somehow ok. I will repeat my prior refrain: Check yourself fool!

  • Reza Palahvi

    OA,

    “As far as where I am getting Ahmadinejad as a fomenter of genocide, I’d say that giving speeches preaching to wipe Israel off the map certainly qualifies. Are you suggesting that he never said that?”

    I’m suggesting that his Farsi was interpreted incorrectly and that he meant MAP in that there shouldn’t be a MAP that shows Israel, but one that shows Palestine. Doesn’t mean GENOCIDE.

    “Do you really think that the Iranian people are all of a sudden going to change their views and get behind Mahmoud simply because Lee Bolinger said some harse and true things to him while letting him speak at his college?”

    I absolutely do.
    The Iranian people are vastly in favor of American culture and Western influences, however, they also place a lot of faith in politeness and civility and their leader whom they generally disagree with, was treated rudely by Americans and they will stand by him for it.

    I never said that Mahmoud would use his nuclear ambitions as a weapon for evil, I said that you are evil to assume he would.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Reza,

    Your first assertion is laughable. Yeah he wasn’t saying wipe israel off the map, he wanted to wipe Israel’s chin, because Israel had a drip of tahini on it. Ahmadinejad was saying he wanted to wipe the tahini from Israel’s chin. I got it, thanks for the clarification.

    Lee Bollinger allowed the president of Iran to speak at his college and discuss his platforms. That Mr. Bollinger actually addressed some of the concerns of the US up front isn’t being disrespectful, it was actually the point of the discussion. If anyone views open and honest dialogue as being impolite, then that sir is a form of censorship. Mr Bollinger allowed Ahmadinejad to respond to the points he brought up, which is far from rude. What’s rude is not being able to take and respond to criticism without resorting to shameful tactics such as those you are engaged on here. You can go on saying what you will but any rational person familiar with the discussion at Columbia won’t view what happened there as rude in the slightest.

    I have a feeling however, that after the columbia discussion, that gay Iranians might feel slighted….

    You claim that I am evil to even think that Ahmadinejad would use his nuclear capability. Here are your words when i asked whether his intentions with nuclear capability was peaceful:

    “Depends on what you think peaceful purposes is, is.

    I think he want to generate some electricity AND a level playing field. ”

    So this means you agree he is totally BSing the international community when he says his desire is peaceful nuclear energy. And you think I am evil because I am concerned that this liar and holocaust denier, and someone who expressed interest in wiping a country off the map might actually use his newfound nuclear power?

    The incoherent nature of this conversation has made me speechless Reza.

  • bliffle

    OA: “I am starting to think people throw around the strawman charge when they don’t have a good argument in return. ”

    A strawman argument.

    At least, please, attack the strawman before he fells you.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Obnoxious,

    I have some bad news for you, my boy. You are a man with a good heart, but you are very naive. The researchers I consult say this about the US generally. Its state department has been trying to rectify the “historic error” of allowing a Jewish entity to arise on the soil of Eretz Yisrael. Because many Americans sympathize with this country, the state department has had to do its dirty work of sandbagging the Jewish state behind closed doors for at least 40 years.

    A few examples:
    1. the American government tried to get Ben Gurion not to declare independence in 1948;
    2. the American government ordered Israeli forces to leave el-Arish in 1949;
    3. when Ariel Sharon conducted a massacre of an Arab village in Jordan to teach the fidayun not to attack, the Americans tried to stop Israel from ever doing that again – and succeeded;
    4. the United States government oprdered Israeli forces out of the Sinai in 1956;
    5. the United States government tried to prevent Israel from attacking pre-emptively in June 1967, and after they did, transmitted information to the Egyptians via the USS Liberty;
    6. the United States government bullied the Israeli government into not pre-emptively attacking Egypt in 1973, and then Kissinger (yeah, the big Jew-boy working for Nelson Rockefeller) held up arms shipments to this country in hopes that the State would fall under the combined Syrian-Egyptian offensive.
    7. the United States government prevented Israel from protecting itself from Iraqi Scud attacks in 1991, and after that war dragged the prime minister to a meeting in Madrid to try and force concessions out of the government here;
    8. the United States government directed from the sidelines the development of the Oslo Accords, which included, among other things, a program for the assassination of community leaders in Judea and Samaria to force Jews to leave here – a program that has been carried out;
    9. the United States government effectively prevented the settlement of large numbers of Russian Jews in Judea and Samaria in 1990-92 by withholding its aid.
    10. the United States government forced and pressured Ariel Sharon to pull out of Gush Qatif in 2005;
    11. the United States government pressured Israel to attack Lebanon in 2006, but laid out such parameters that the IDF was sure to lose – and it did.

    This is an ally? You really buy all that bullshit about Israel and America being fellow democracies in the world? Wake up!! The world don’t work that way!

    In the real world, the Jewish state, now weakened to being nothing more than a falafel republic in the Middle East is being held out as bait for the Syrians and the Iranians to bite at. The idea is that AFTER this place has been shelled and missiled to bits, THEN the United States will attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

    I’ve been warning of this for over a year, and it is due to happen soon…

  • The Obnoxious American

    bliffle,

    Once again long on cutsey, short on actual content.

    Ruvy,

    Those points might all be true, and there is probably an equal list of items the US can cite as reasons why Israel is not a good ally either.

    The US isn’t of one heart and mind, and the view doesn’t always stay the same. Still and all, you cannot deny that the US is an ally of Israel, and without the US Israel would not be here right now.

    I will agree that there is a large number of Americans who question the US “commitment” to Israel, and some who even actively work against Israel. I also think that the US does pressure Israel to keep them from possibly excersizing their full power effectively against terror. The various US designed peace processes and roadmaps that Israel has accommodated with absolutely no reciprocation from Palestinians is a testament to that.

    However, it’s also true that Israelis have made their own mistakes that feed into this endless cycle, namely not truly understanding how to fight the propaganda war along with the military one. And this is an area where Israel needs to improve. After all, how is it that Israel seems to be unable to ever make their case? I side with Israel of course, but i have endless arguments with friends here in the US who really think our relationship with Israel puts us at a risk we don’t need to be exposed to. The only reason why Americans feel this way is because of the lack of savvy on the part of Israelis in getting their side of the story out.

    Is US support of Israel perfect? No. Is Israel perfect, no. Is the US perfect, no. But it’s all we got. Better than the alternative. At least you have some people like me back here in the US who aren’t offended by the charge of naivete and will still at least try and remind Americans why we support and should continue to support Israel.

  • Reza Palahvi

    By blindly supporting Israel, you are blind to the culture of Iranians and Arabs and Muslims in general. It causes you to think of them as dirty dogs less than human. You don’t invite a head of state to speak at your University and then just because every one in the press is criticizing you for it, you lecture the man for 3 full minutes before he even has a chance to speak.
    As far as gays go, they are in our military now, serving proudly. They chose to serve their country first, not their gay-agenda. Same thing Iran. Gays aren’t happy about their lack of freedoms in Iran, but they will defend their country and their President first.

    The Iranians want to use nuclear power for a trump card. They believe that Israel (er…the US) wants to BLOW them off the map and therefore they need their own freezer to ensure they are in the cold war.

    Now if you think they want to lob NUKES at Israel because Allah will repay them with virgins in heaven, you sir are naive.

    Peace

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Obnoxious,

    You seem to be missing the point here. In my comment, I was careful to specify the American government, as opposed to the American people – who seem to have a very positive image of this country and who are generally not fooled by Arab propaganda, no matter how much they get snowed with it. And believe me, you guys get blizzards and blizzards of the shit.

    If you look carefully, you will see that the actions of the United States government are not those of an ally, but those of an imperial power manipulating facts and money to weaken the Jewish nation-state. That is being generous. Basically, the position of the United States state department is that of an enemy determined to bring down the State without any blood on IT’S hands….

    It is very important for those of us who live here to see that, and more and more we do. I’m a little ahead of the learning curve, that’s all.

    It’s also important for you to see this if you honestly want to be a real supporter of the country. I do not expect friendship from the government of the United States, and take its carefully disguised enmity as a given. And I’m smart enough to know and enemy when I see one. I’m asking you to be equally as smart.

    The Israeli government will not make its case because it has basically been bought out by American and European Union power agents. AIPAC and similar groups are nothing more than ego-games played by rich American Jews who think that money will by them a seat of power at the table of the Protestant oil and banking establishment that runs America. they only delude themselves, and forget the difference between the managers, who are often Jews, and the owners – WNO AREN’T.

    Finally there comes the issue of dual loyalty. At some point, it will be crystal clear that the interests of the United States and those of Israel will oppose each other. At that point you will have to choose who you honestly support, and at that point, it will be us or them. I made my choice, and the choice for my wife and kids. And now that we live here, we would never return….

  • Ahmadinejad

    If you want to know more about Jewish control check out this article. Steve sailer is pretty controversial, but he has some interesting stuff in regards to jews. I don’t want to promote racism or anything, but you might as well know how the world works (by the way sailer is part jewish himself).

  • Ninja

    Obnoxious:

    (Your attempts to live up to your name are praiseworthy.)

    “I will explain why no one cares about the attack on the USS liberty.”

    Your explanation defies reality.

    There are 174 American survivors and the families of 34 dead Americans who still care very much — just as they have cared for the past 40 years.

    “In fact, [Israel is] one of the US’s main allies in the middle east.”

    The US has no allies in the Middle East. All the US has in the Middle East is a bunch of foreign aid recipients of US welfare.

    “It’s similar to how back 30 years ago, Saddam was an ally and eventually became an enemy. You realize that relationships are not static, don’t you?”

    You believe Saddam was an ally of the US? He was a stooge that outlived his usefulness.

    “Listen Ninja, try and rake up any kind of fact that will help your anti jewish hatred spread,”

    Obviously you are programmed to use your worn out epithet and vituperation in response to any fact you don’t like.

    “if anything you are brainwashed into believing terrorism is somehow ok.”

    That comment is unworthy of a response but I will be generous and try to help you understand how you have been deluded.

    Don’t be brainwashed into believing there can be a “war on terror” just because the media says so. Terrorism is a tactic which has been used for thousands of years. Recently it’s been used by nationalists such as the Basques, the IRA, and groups in the Middle East fighting occupation. The tactic should not be condoned but it should be understood in the context of nationalism denied.

    “I will repeat my prior refrain: Check yourself fool!”

    Some advice: Please practice on how to write without using epithets. You may think it helps you make a point but it just points your finger back at you.

  • Zedd

    Dave, Biffle and someone else (lazy to scroll back),

    I think the problem is that you are arguing against definitions and concepts that are and have been well established in the academic world for quite some time. To Cindy and some others (i would assume), your objections reflect a lack of understanding of some basic concepts regarding power, class and social relationships (if I can state things that simply avoiding sounding too academic). Because this is my area of interest and learning, I find it fascinating and would suggest that you do a quick study. You might think that it is a waste of time however…. I would suggest that you do take a tiny look at some of these ideas as they will help you to make better conclusions and possible predictions about social phenomena. Just a thought. Understanding some patterns also reduces the ones stress level. One comes to the understanding that people are just people as Cindy said earlier.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Your beliefs contradict the facts. You merely need to scroll up to see comments you did make about me.

    I did scroll up. I made one generalization about the mental weakness of sociology majors as a group. Did you take that personally? If so you should have studied a discipline which supported critical thinking rather than indoctrination.

    “As for understanding what you last posted, it wasn’t exactly complex.

    What I last posted was the same thing I posted before in a slightly different way.

    And it wasn’t complex then either.

    And if it is so simple then why is it that you still don’t understand it yet.

    I do understand it. But understanding does not, in fact, mean that I will automatically agree with you through some magical process of revealed truth.

    It’s not this simple:

    “Of course we should seek input from everyone before forming opinions of them.”

    This assumes we are capable of seeing their position as relevant. It assumes we don’t idealize ourselves and simply confirm this ideology with a utopian view of ourselves.

    Which is an expansion of exactly what I said in the next sentence which you chose not to quote.

    But, we do this. I do this. Whether I like it or not.

    You certainly do.

    The fact that you do this (idealize your position and cling to a utopian view of your ideology), without even thinking about it, is evident in many of your beliefs posted as objective facts.

    I make a very clear distinction between my opinions, observations and facts. I don’t really accept the concept of ‘objective’ fact. But my opinions are at least informed by facts as I have observed them.

    As for my ‘ideology’, I doubt you even have any idea what it is.

    Dave

    And now here, I am talking about the US, as a nation. But, don’t make the assumption–again– (please) that I am comparing us to someone else. When I do you will be able to detect it by the mention of the some one else’s name.

    We say we are for justice and freedom. We call ourselves humanitarians. Yet we exploit each other, enslave each other, oppress each other, wage wars (like Iraq among others), design a system that favors 3% of our society and allows millions of children to live in poverty.

    Then we sing God Bless America with tears in our eyes.

  • Cindy D

    #51 an example of what Dave claims “…made one generalization about the mental weakness of sociology majors as a group…”

    But Baronius, isn’t the kind of racism which Cindy and Zedd and Moonraven display – racism born of self-righteous elitism – inherently ignorant? At the very least they’re ignorant of how their supposedly enlightened beliefs are indistinguishable from other forms of racism.

    Racism and cultural elitism is so strongly ingrained in internationalist socialism that most of them aren’t even aware it’s there.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    What does this mean to you Dave??

    “ingrained in internationalist socialism”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Oops sorry, Cindy. I didn’t scroll up quite that far. Lumping you in with Zedd and Moonraven is cruel, but you have yet to prove my initial assessment to be off the mark.

    Dave

  • Irene Wagner

    Bring the Iranian invasion on! Let their filmmakers detonate a “reverse dirty bomb” in Hollywood–one that would suck up all the filth coming out of there, replacing it with films like “Children of Heaven.” Wouldn’t the Right Wing Christian Evangelical Rag-Head-Hating Warmongers (am I stereotyping here?) be pleasantly surprised? More than a few Left Wing Liberals With a Homosexual Agenda (am I stereotyping here?) would be less than pleased, no doubt.

    People are complicated. Every day people who might be good friends are giving one another the back of their hand, because, being far removed from one another geographically and linguistically (or idealogically), they are depending on their political (or idealogical) leaders to let them know what The Enemy is really like.

    Diogenes of Guayaquil–The shared nuclear power idea sounds good. I prefer, though, the idea of a world-wide concerted effort to develop technology to harness wind power. There are no alternate military uses to which the technology could be applied. No risk of meltdowns. No need to monitor raw materials or waste.

    And every country has its own wind, produced by the rotation of the earth over the land, or by its politicians.

  • Cindy D

    “But my opinions are at least informed by facts as I have observed them.”

    Fair enough. But, I’m not sure that there is anyone this wouldn’t apply to. Who isn’t informed by the facts as they observe them?

    “As for my ‘ideology’, I doubt you even have any idea what it is.”

    To be sure. I wouldn’t claim I do. I’m describing something I have seen in some of your writing , it doesn’t require an understanding of your ideology.

  • Clavos

    “And every country has its own wind, produced by the rotation of the earth over the land…”

    Um, Irene.

    Since the earth’s atmosphere rotates with the globe, the rotation of the earth does not actually produce wind. What the rotation does do, through the Coriolis effect, is change patterns of direction (“swirling”) of wind flows. If there were no rotation, all winds would flow in a straight line.

    Surface winds are produced by meteorological phenomena: jet streams (which are the result of upper atmosphere circulation cells rubbing against each other), temperature and pressure gradients, surface changes (of the earth; sea-land, e.g.) etc. All these (except jet streams) are the winds we feel at surface level (synoptic winds), and are what drive wind generators.

  • Reza Palahvi

    Blowhard

  • Clavos

    Thanks!

  • moonraven

    Diogenes: Racism is alive and well in Guayaquil. I spent 4 months there in 2003 as dean of a private university callled UEES–and saw that the honest man also did not exist there.

    That said, gringo is not a racist term. It is used here in Mexico to refer to folks from the US.

    I am Native American–and since we were first on Turtle Island I will be as “racist” as I damn please.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    What does this mean to you Dave??

    “ingrained in internationalist socialism”

    It means that the believers in internationalist socialism have integrated racism as a fundamental cornerstone of their ideology. It’s not the racism of white hoods and burning crosses, but thr racism of liberal condescension and hypocritical multiculturalism.

    Dave

  • Irene Wagner

    Clavos–you know a LOT about wind, man!

    May I live to see the day when President Ron Paul–what would be a Constitutional way to do this?–appoints you as Secretary of the Department of Energy. Then, when you’ve furnished every nation in the world with the Uber Efficient Wind Power Generating Technology your team has developed, he can get rid of the Department of Energy! And probably decimate the DoD budget!

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    What is Internationalist Socialism? Are you talking about the international coalescing of trade unions? If so, what does race or racism have to do with that?

    If you are talking about Socialist ideology being applied globally, and it only being applied to non Europeans by Europeans who would not live in Socialist nations…. please expound on that.

    The paternalism of the West is not limited to prescribing socialist ideas. It is an overall lording over the entire planet, ascribing ideas to people and assuming a superior ability to determine THEIR well being. Whether the suggestion is for them to adhere to socialist ideas or adopt capitalistic principles, Christianity or Democracy; feng shui or mood rings. The eye rolling, yet assumed racial superiority that Whites (in general) posses is tiresome to the rest of the planets inhabitants and is an endless baby sitting job which we cant seem to rid ourselves of. It is the consistent 20 ton gorilla in the room.

    Iran wants nuclear capability but they have to jump all sorts of loops including making ridiculous speaking engagements, just so their humanity is somewhat considered. Just to prove to the delusional of our planet that they are not the apes that they are thought to be. They have to be “approved” by people who have stacks of nukes and are currently involved in a slaughter of their neighbors and have managed to get the entire world at war twice in the past 100 yrs. Yet it is they who are feared. Help!

    Perspective is something else… sigh

  • Zedd

    OA
    “And you think I am evil because I am concerned that this liar and holocaust denier, and someone who expressed interest in wiping a country off the map might actually use his newfound nuclear power?”

    What does one have to do with the other? Questioning the holocaust means that you intend to blow up Israel with nukes, when doing so would kill Palestinians? Now really… think man! Politicians lie. Ours do all the time so should we loose nuclear capability because of it?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    “It’s not the racism of white hoods and burning crosses, but thr racism of liberal condescension and hypocritical multiculturalism.”

    Amazing to me that anyone could write this with a straight face. Sheer baloney. “PC” rhetoric can certainly be wrongheaded and excessive, but simply turning it inside out is no better. Give us a break.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Zedd invoked:

    the consistent 20 ton gorilla in the room

    Zedd, I think you’ve started one of those curious inflationary metaphors. You know, like that other one, “the 64,000-dollar question” which, over time, became the 64 million-dollar question…

  • The Obnoxious American

    Zedd,

    “What does one have to do with the other? Questioning the holocaust means that you intend to blow up Israel with nukes, when doing so would kill Palestinians? Now really… think man! Politicians lie. Ours do all the time so should we loose nuclear capability because of it?”

    But he wasn’t just questioning whether the holocaust happened, he’s also calling for the destruction of Israel. And he’s also complicit in the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. As far as the Palestinians, ask yourself how many Iraqis have “martyred” themselves by way of Iranian agents? Your flimsy position depends on the Iranians actually caring about Palestinians. Judging by the number of Iranian built schools and hospitals in the west bank or gaza, I happen to think any Palestinians that might die in an Iranian attack on Israel would get the 72 virgin consolation prize.

    With all due respect Zedd, your comments are written with an obvious intellect. So I find it very difficult to understand why you’d cherry pick Ahmadinejad’s history to make some point about me. Please read up on his words and actions, then let’s have the discussion as to why he should have nukes.

    Ruvy,

    I gotta repeat what I said earlier: “The US isn’t of one heart and mind, and the view doesn’t always stay the same. ”

    In a free country, even government officials can choose their own platforms. So while there are people like Bush who really do support Israel on an almost religious and ideological level, there are also people like Condi Rice whose actions haven’t been all that good for israel. We are not a contiguous nation operating in lockstep, we’d have to be a tyranny for that.

    The other points I made are also valid, Israel wouldn’t exist without the US. Allies, like friends, don’t always see eye to eye. That doesn’t mean the friendship should die. This is similar to the relationship between the US and France. Without France, the US would likely not be here. The US alliance with France is centuries old, and is still vital to both countries existence. However, we certainly disagree with France on an awful lot.

    Reza,

    I think I’ve made enough specific arguments to prove that I am not “blindly supporting Israel” as you’ve suggested. Your absolute lack of actually being a part of this debate means that this will be the last time I waste my time typing to you, unless you can make it back to earth and join the debate with the rest of us.

    Just one last piece of advice – I would quit working for ahmadinejad if i were you. Information ministers for tyrants don’t usually need a retirement plan.

    Ninja,

    Terrorism is a tactic for sure. But the war on terror isn’t against the IRA or any of the other groups you’ve cited, it’s about Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to die in order to destroy our society. Clearly you don’t see it this way, and that’s to your detriment. If you think that there is some equality between the type of attacks carried out by the IRA (who were fighting for their independence) and attacks by the Al Qaeda and their ilk (designed to enforce Islamic dominance over the world), you are seriously deluded.

    As far as the USS liberty, clearly you are missing the point so I will attempt to make this as clear as possible for you as to why this is very very different:

    Is there any threat of Israel attacking the US or it’s interests?

    Is there any threat of Al Qaeda attacking the US or it’s interests?

    Simple right?

    Irene,

    I love wind power. Why can’t we have like a million windmills in the desert somewhere? And solar is great too. Wouldn’t that just resolve a lot of the issues? I think yes. Shame on these liberal elites that reject windmills on their mansions!!

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Obnoxious,

    I’m going to give this one more try – that’s all.

    Please read this article by Emmanuel Winston. It’s a long read, but it makes my point. If you honestly want to understand what is actually going on between the United States and Israel, this article is a fundamental place to begin.

    Lynching Israel has been the State Department?s goal since 1947 and has not stopped or faltered a day since. While Rice is the “talking head” for Bush, look for James Baker as the “masked” arranger, only slightly off in the shadows, advising Rice how to best get at the Jews — as he did in the spectacularly failed “Road Map” plan and many plans and papers before that.

    I initially had thought that the Liberty attack in the Trib was the “Kick-off Campaign of Propaganda” but, then remembered CNNs Christiane Amanpour?s high profile series “The Warriors of God,” aired twice in August 2007. Christiane, herself an Iranian, opened the series by positioning Israel, using decades-old incidents involving marginal and minor Israeli fringe groups — as the baseless attacker of those poor innocent Palestinians. Perhaps the Amanpour series was the real “Kick-off” of State’s preparation to Lynch Israel.

    CNN is sort of like the New York Times of TV and well connected to State. And hey, whaddya know, it just so happens that Christiane is married to James Rubin, former spokesman of, you guessed it, the State Department.

    This is not going to be pleasant reading, but Manny Winston has called a lot of shots way ahead of time. Pay close attention. The man knows what he is talking about.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Ruvy,

    I don’t disagree with you or are surprised by what the article is saying. Not one bit.

    A quick aside, I think Christiane Amanpour’s CNN special was total crap, just another liberal excersize in moral relativism. People can try to say that Islamic terror is nothing worse than what’s been engaged in by fringe groups of other religions. In fact, some have made that very point here (Ninja’s comments to wit).

    While Christian and Jewish fringe groups may (or may not) have been responsible for some pretty bad things over the years, the simple fact is that both Judaism and Christianity are rooted in a respect for life and living. And when a fringe Christian or Jewish group acts in a violent way, it’s generally not supported by the religion as a whole. Take the IRA for example, or David Koresh, Jonestown, crusades, etc, all movements that were highly disavowed by believers of the associated religions.

    The difference between god’s warriors is that at least the Christian and Jewish ones seem to realize that life is better than the alternative. I don’t see the outcry from most Muslim groups when a terrorist attack is carried out. Instead groups like CAIR and even the general Muslim populace make excuses for why the attack happened, pointing at things like US foreign policy.

    And that viewpoint is even evident here on these boards – I remember a conversation the other week where we were debating OBL’s fatwah BECAUSE people actually seem to give it meaning. We didn’t give that same meaning to any number of religiously motivated killings by groups of other religions. In fact we view them as they should be, weird, fringe groups that have lost their way that need to be put in jail. I just don’t see that kind of backlash against terrorist in the Islamic community. In fact, I see the opposite – support and excuse making (for example, election of Hamas).

    How many times have we heard that we need to understand why 9/11 happened? Just saying that is engaging in a blame the victim mentality. Nothing can excuse the killing of thousands of civillians who are on their way to work by a bunch of hijackers in commercial jets. This isn’t even close to a legitimate warfare tactic – it’s reprehensible terrorism plain and simple. I just wish more people such as Ms Amanpour realized the murder that they are abetting by making excuses for it.

    (And before every liberal and anti semite crawls out of the wood work and starts citing lists of atrocities carried out by Israel or Christians, scroll back up – you obviously missed the point I was making).

    Back to the original point here, I’ve heard the charge that state hates Israel. So does Hillary, although she’s gotten better at hiding it. So do many Americans, including people whom I know personally. Some just hate Jews. Many people here in the US raise the same question you did, but in reverse, essentially saying that our support of Israel is not at all in line with our interest. I view our alliance with Israel as tenuous at best, honestly. Of course, part of the reason I am here is in hopes of possibly changing the views of some who are more open minded.

    Ruvy, not really sure what your goal is here. You’re not showing me anything or revealing anything to me I don’t already know. You’re not going to get a bit “Aha!” moment out of me. Nothing you are saying changes my view that America is a great country, that it’s my home, and that it’s an important ally (possibly the only one) for Israel.

    I don’t expect alliances to be easy or to be agreed by all involved. But our alliance with Israel is an important one. I am trying to help establish support for it. I happen to think that Israelis talking badly about America doesn’t really help your cause, or help Americans like myself who want to do more for Israel. I know that Israel is no island, and you need allies like the US, even if there are some factions here that might try to throw a wrench in the works.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “I don’t disagree with you or are surprised by what the article is saying. Not one bit.
    ………………
    Ruvy, not really sure what your goal is here. You’re not showing me anything or revealing anything to me I don’t already know. You’re not going to get a bit “Aha!” moment out of me. Nothing you are saying changes my view that America is a great country, that it’s my home, and that it’s an important ally (possibly the only one) for Israel.”

    If you “agree” with me, then I’m only trying to get you to take that final step and admit to the bitter truth: the United States government is not an ally of my country – as it is devoted itself to the destruction of my country.

    I’m not telling you to leave the States (tempted though I am), I’m not telling you that America is not a great country, even if I think it isn’t anymore, I’m not telling you that you shouldn’t love it, if that is what your heart leads you to do – even though I believe otherwise.

    I’m pleading with you to look at facts that you yourself agree to and admit that lynching a nation to force it to cough up strategic territory that it has begun to settle is not the action of an ally, but that of an enemy.

    There may yet be elements in your government that are friendly to us – certain congressmen or senators, certain departments in the government.

    But the folks who matter are enemies. People like the president and his prominent advisors.

    That is not a pleasant truth – but it is nonetheless true.

  • Zedd

    OA,

    It would seem that you need for Ahmadinejad to be evil in order for you to harbor the feelings that you have. Its been explained over and over again what his statement about Israel meant. It seems that you want their meaning to have the worst spin possible. Why? Lets say that he didn’t say that he wants Israel blown off the face of the Earth. Now where is the foundation for your position? It would seem that you need for him to have said that in order to justify your ideas.

    Iran should be involved in the Iraqi war. If our enemy attacked Mexico and was destroying it, proclaiming that they were going to change our entire region, would we not get involved? They are prudent to engage. If you want to blame anyone for the deaths of OUR soldiers, blame everyone who played a role in getting them there in the first place. Not the people who want to be left alone.

  • MAOZ

    Ruvy, what Winston is describing: Mamash Gog uMagog!

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    I was feeling colorful at the moment. I love the phrase “inflationary metaphors”. I suppose with advancement taking place in just about every aspect of our experiences, bells and whistles going off all over the place, one has to overstate in order to be heard. Wow, I think I understand Ruvy better now.

  • Ninja

    Obnoxious:

    “Terrorism is a tactic for sure.”

    You got that right, but it’s clear you really don’t get it. Most of the attacks around the world which are terrorist in nature can be traced to some state action that instigated it. The tactic has always been around and it probably always will be. It’s a tactic, nothing more.

    “But the war on terror isn’t against the IRA or any of the other groups you’ve cited, it’s about Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to die in order to destroy our society.”

    You conveniently forget that 20 years ago al-Qaeda did not exist and that bin Laden was our friend. You have to understand what happened to change that.

    “If you think that there is some equality between the type of attacks carried out by the IRA (who were fighting for their independence) and attacks by al-Qaeda and their ilk (designed to enforce Islamic dominance over the world), you are seriously deluded.”

    The equality is obvious. It’s independence. Keep in mind that 25 years ago Hamas and Hezbollah did not exist. You have to understand what happened in Lebanon and the occupied Palestine lands that caused these groups to form.

    “As far as the USS liberty, clearly you are missing the point so I will attempt to make this as clear as possible.”

    Your response did nothing to clarify it. I asked why was the USS Liberty attack swept under the Congressional carpet? There are 174 American survivors and the families of 34 dead Americans who still care very much — just as they have cared for the past 40 years. Why, for over 40 years, has the US Congress refused to grant the survivors and the families of the dead a hearing?

    If you google “USS Liberty” you will get 221,000 hits.

    Come back when you learn something.

  • Biff

    More paranoia.

    I hope it’s your or your kids that get shipped off to Iran to baby sit them after regime change.

  • Lev

    Last I heard, Iran was an independent country. Meaning it doesn’t have to get approval from the ignorant fascist U.S. or from anyone else before they decide to develop whatever kinds of weapons they want and whatever kind of electricity generation they want. The world will be a much better place when Americans realise that they don’t own it.

    Furthermore, just what the hell is America going to do if Iran DOES develop nukes? Huh? It’s bogged down in Iraq and couldn’t spare a battalion if there was a crisis in Haiti let alone trying to bully Iran. It would have to be with air power alone and if you think that American air power is going to be able to crush Iran or even destroy its capacity to develop nukes, keep dreaming.

    If the U.S. launches airstrikes against Iran four things will happen just about immediately:
    1.Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz with sea mines covered by anti-ship missile batteries, meaning no oil tankers leaving the Gulf, meaning the price of gas is going to go through the roof overnight; 2.Iran will turn the Persian Gulf into a shooting gallery and sink every U.S. Navy ship in it inside of an afternoon using anti-ship cruise missile batteries, well-positioned in the mountains all along the Iranian littoral, including the latest Russian ones that skim just above the wavetops and take evasive manouevres just before impact, and against which the U.S. Navy has NO COUNTERMEASURES able to deal with them; 3.Iran would rain battlefield ballistic missiles down on every U.S. base in Iraq and probably in Kuwait and Bahrain as well; and 4.Iran would, either by using its Shiia proxies in Iraq, or by using Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guard regulars, invade Iraq, besiege the U.S. firebases there and make the U.S. occupation of Iraq about ten times more untenable than it already is. They would very quickly kick the U.S. out of the Middle East once and for all. So poking a not-very-sharp stick at Iran would be the biggest mistake the U.S. policymakers could possibly make, and would make the humiliation of not being able to put down the Resistance in Iraq by a bunch of guys in track suits with old small arms look like a glorious victory. Don’t screw with Iran or you’ll seriously regret it.

  • http:.//ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Lev,

    You sound like a Russian – you keep mentioning Russian weaponry. If the Americans are stupid enough to pull off the kind of attack you describe, the Iranians would have little trouble making life hell for Americans.

    That is why the surgical approach is necessary with a butcher knife – a nuclear bomb with a number of megatons (at least 10) that turns Tehran into nuclear glass and steam – destroying the Iranian government and command and control center there while it is at it. If the command and control center is elsewhere, then the 10+ megaton nuke goes to destroy it elsewhere as well.

    Don’t think that the Protestant oil and banking conglomerate that controls the United States would shrink from such an act, either. Underneath the fancy suits and ties, they are brutal, heartless bastards.