And again, that is VERY different than what you said (and a whole new quote than the one you cited before).

I have no dog in this race. I don't know if we are pursuing a policy of strikes or invasion of Iran. I do see the parallels with the buildup to Iraq, but I also see a lot of extrinsic factors that make any large-scale attack highly unlikely.

With that being said, you made a bold assertion (as you commonly do), yabanci called you on it, and you are unable to substantiate your assertion. So, instead you complain others here are misconstruing your words. That's weak. Bush has not said attacking Iran would be a "bad idea." You can find some support for the idea that he says we aren't planning to do it. But you haven't found anything close to your "bad idea" assertion. And so I see the score as yabanci: 1, st. cronin: -1 (since you blamed others for your inability to find support for your assertion rather than just admitting you were wrong).

lol ok ... I don't really care, anyway. It's a message board. I did not make anything up - those remarks were what I was referencing, I believe they amount to an admission that attacking Iran is out of the question. I think it's obvious that's what he's admitting: But some people are still going to insist something else, that's how this game is played.

There was really no delcaration of the good/bad value of attacking Iran. What was declared was that the decision to attack Iran was clearly inferior to continuing diplomacy. An attack may or may not be a good idea, but it clearly isn't the best.

I think equating "not the best idea" to "a bad idea" is causing the issues.

Point out for me where Bush said "attacking Iran would be a bad idea".

That's a fair point. It's 'a bad idea' in comparison to multi-lateral diplomacy.

Note to self: photocopy John Galt's note.

The problem is that we are unlikely to achieve any sort of a satisfactory conclusion in Iraq with the current body count of Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with killing 50 insurgents to prevent one US casualty, but with a death total of about 1000 civilians per month due to violence, and with the Iraqi Interior Ministry reduced to telling Iraqi's not to obey the orders given by Iraqi troops unless they are accompanied by Coalition forces (due to the large number of militia either in, or pretending to be, the IM police and the military), we have got to do something to lower the Iraqi body count.

What about the lives of British civilians?

They already have contingency plans ready. They have contingency plans ready for just about everything. Back in 1934, they had a contingency plan for war with Britain. I'm sure now they have contingency plans for war with Saudi Arabia, with Russia, etc. Some plans are more complete than others. When war looks more likely, they dust of the contingency plans, update them, and then start filling in which units will participate, how they will get to where they need to be and so forth. It is this later step that Hersh claimed (on NPR) is being started.

any change since today's announcement?

Press conference:
Sounds like they are planning an attack, what does everyone else think?

This has to be sarcasm....right?

Sounds like they had a meeting.

I love the way the journalists are asking questions like they are completely dumb-founded. That's a nice touch, but typical if you ever tune to C-SPAN and watch press conferences uncut.

My mistake, that press conference was from August of 2002 and the country in question was Iraq. I don't understand how I got it confused, the situations are so different! At that time, we now know that Bush had already put his 'attack Iraq' plan into formulation. Notice his use of the word 'speculation'. What's today's buzzword in respect to Iran? 'Wild speculation'! Amazing the differences from then to now: now it's not only speculation that we have an attack planned against Iraq/Iran, it's WILD speculation!

The Bush administration is made of two key elements: neocons (Cheney et al) and people who care only about politics (Rove et al). An attack on Iran appeals to the first for crazy world-view reasons, and appeals to the latter for election reasons. So we are relying on a grown up to put the brakes on, and I ask, who is that grown up in the current administration?

What's your over/under on the invasion?

It's going to be interesting. One of the news channels (can't remember which) was saying that Iran has been given some time to open up their facilities and there is going to be an inspection soon. The UN Security Council is also meeting in the middle of this year to impose sanctions if Iran doesn't cooperate.

If the US attacks Iran now, that really smacks of it being another unilateral action. Wonder how it's going to play out.

Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/wo...rtner=homepage

When is the US going to attack? In your estimation?

The Atlantic Monthly has long been one of my favorite publications, and James Fallows one of their best authors. He has written an excellent column on attacking Iran. I highly recommend it.

Who knows? If the US was going to abide by the UN's policies, probably not anytime soon.

If the US decides that Iran is a major threat, probably sometime really soon. It's just a little scary that in the press conferences I've seen or heard about recently, the US absolutely refuses to give a definite answer about an attack. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to give such an answer, but it would definitely have reassured me if a statement was made that war with Iran is not an option at this time and/or the US would abide by the UN's decision.

I think it all depends on the political situation. They are going to use Iran for the midterms like they used Iraq in 2002, the only question is to what extent. They can't afford to lose the House and the subpeona power that comes with it. After all, Bush is down below 40% approval and all they've been doing is saying, 'No comment' and sweeping every investigation under the rug. Who knows what will happen Iraq, Katrina, NSA, even the NH phone jamming scandal actually gets investigated. Even if the GOP wins the midterms, all the Iran talk is likely to create 'excess war demand' (I think that was discussed in the Farrow article that myself and mojo cited), meaning that Bush may paint himself into a corner where he must attack Iran or be seen as backing down.

So the earliest would be spring of next year, I think, depending on how things are going politically (that's the winning gameplan, politically, why change it?). It's already been reported in a major magazine and the biggest paper in DC that an aggressive nuclear first strike is still on the table, so who knows what these clowns are capable of.

Not saying you're wrong, but how do you know this? Unless you have direct communication with the people of Iraq, then you too are relying on a 'biased media' to form your own views.

That's the spirit get your retaliation in first! Every other country in the entire world has the potential to attack everybody else - so does every country attack everyone else first 'to eliminate a potential threat'? :rolleyes:

That would be apocalyptic anarchy.

The problem with the logic applied to the Iran situation is that what is being proposed in effect is the following:

1. No countries who do not currently have nuclear technology shouldn't be allowed to develop it, because of the risk of a madman starting a catastrophic war

2. In order to maintain the status quo the biggest superpower in the world should attack any country which threatens or begins to develop nuclear technology to prevent them from doing so

So in effect you have got to make war to prevent war, which is counter-intuitive at best.

The other thing that cropped up earlier this thread is the protection against Israel and the suppression of terrorism (e.g. directly related to Israel, Palestine). This is semantics - if the US had originally supported Palestine, and events had turned out exactly as they had done despite the change in US alliance, the exact same argument could be amde in favour of Palestine against Israel. Both use and have used terrorism in order to try and achieve their aims.

No, I think Franklin's relying on reports from his brother who is over in Iraq (or at least was in Iraq). That said, I don't know if that makes the view anymore credible.

At least that is from a direct source, so holds a lot more credence. I was lucky enough to be in Asia for 6 months, unluckily it was the same time as the Allied Forces invaded Iraq (I landed 2 days before the first bombs fell).

For the first few days I was in decent(ish) hotels that had BBC World Service, CNN and local Asian English speaking news channels. Flicking between the three, it was as if there were three different wars - CNN obviously being the most positive outlook on events, and the Asian channel mixing coverage from the other two and non-English speaking Asian channels, providing the most balanced coverage.

Hopefully people realise that Al-Jazeerah (sp?) is only doing in reverse what the western news channels do, espcially the likes of CNN and Fox, providing a tunnel-visioned view of world and local events. Almost all, if not all, media reports have an angle and/or bias, and therefore are a form of propoganda.

I am continually shocked at how so many Europeans view the Palestinian conflict.

Just read the charter of groups like Hamas and tell me how this is an equal conflict, and how a few incidents cherry-picked from a century of unending violence is somehow morally equivalent to an unending stream of incidents from groups that wish to eliminate Israel entirely.

If the US had originally supported the Arabs (the entire region is called Palestine, and both groups had and still have a legitimate claim), I think Europe could rest easy, because the world would be free of Jews, most of the continent would be speaking German and this forum, while it might still exist, would have a different name.

Especially when my brother appears to have an experience diametrically opposed to Franklin's.

I'm pretty sure WWII was over and the Nazis defeated before Israel was founded.

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm pretty sure the Jews did not magically teleport to what is now Israel in 1948. The wave of migration that led to the choice of Palestine began in the 1890s when the Russians decided they wanted all the Jews dead. The Nazis were never original, they were merely more accomplished.

Despite being painfully wrong, this view has the redeeming qualities of being novel, unique, and somewhat fascinating... I would very much like to hear the theory of causation underlying this idea (the scenario as it would play out). The Arabs were crypto-germanic Nazis then? :confused:

So spring of next year. I'll give you a month extra. Let's see if the process of regime change by force for political gain begins by June of 07. That's about right for you based on the news media?

Also, do you think the Democrats will use this same political gameplan in their favor (provided Bush does not) once Hillary Clinton is in office or will they just deal with the 'unpopularity' by considering such options as diplomacy or using the United Nations? FWIW, I think the current admin is trying that, but I may be in the minority with that belief.

Also, provided Iran does acquire nuclear technology and then uses that against Americans, would you then support the use of force against Iran? What if Iran hands off a bomb to a 'militant' and he/she detonates themself and the weapon in Tel Aviv. Would that be enough to provoke concern from you?

Do you seriuosly believe the political climate is exactly the same as it was before the Iraq war? Remember, the vast majority of Americans were for attacking Iraq before war began, and the majority of Democrats in congress voted in favor of the war at the time. Do you think that could happen now? Bush's unfavorable rating is largely because of the war, do you really think he'll get a "war bump" when it is war the American people are tired of?

No, but their mandate in an Arab land was due to the West deciding to place Israel there, as oppose to the other considered locations in Europe (why not a chunk of Germany) or even South America. It was an imperialistic action.

You know, this again is one of those issues that are often colored in black and white when I don't think there was ever a clear-cut solution. Palestine made a lot of sense for the Jewish homeland at the time because there was a large population of Jews already there, and they have a historical background in the region. They could have given the part of Germany, but how is that any different than part of Palestine (moving them into an area surrounded by a group of people who wants them exterminated. Remember the Holocaust just happened). Moving them to South America means taking land from the people already there and having to move Jews into an area that they have no ties to.

Of course, maybe the best course of action would have been no "Jewish homeland."

Don't get me wrong, I am a long way from supporting the Arabs on this one, I just don't think people can or should close their eyes to the facts that atrocities have been committed by both sides.

Ignoring the wholly wrong anti-semitic take on the British (note the differentiation - I don't know the European outlook on this) I think the most pertinent thing you said was that both sides have legitimate claims to the land, and therein the problems lie.

I may have misunderstood what you wrote. When you wrote "if the U.S. had supported the Arabs", I thought you meant in the context of the creation of Israel after WWII, not, say, from the late 19th-century.

For "Iran" substitute "Pakistan", then "North Korea". In either case, should we pre-emptively intervene?

What if Iran performs a successful nuclear bomb test, and then Israel hands off a bomb to a "militant" and he/she detonates themself and the weapon in Tehran. What then?

Hold on a second, I'm waiting for answers to my questions.

Those are easy questions. Of course and of course. What's your point?

Right. The US (and especially Roosevelt) was instrumental in providing aid for the Jews as they tried to escape Europe during the '30s and early '40s. Many Jews today are still hard-core Democrats and adhere firmly to New Deal principles out of loyalty to Roosevelt. If FDR supported it, it must be a good plan.


We should give Israel the benefit of the doubt for now, because they act in defense against bombings intended to kill their citizens. No one in Israel calls for the deaths of 60 million Iranians. No one in Israel says the Arabs must leave the Middle East, or every man, woman and child should be pursued, rooted out of hiding and slaughtered. The Israeli Constitution does not contain Old Testament verse describing this slaughter.

If Israel were to detonate a nuclear weapon in a Arab population center, that benefit of the doubt would disappear. If they were to sabotage the Iranian nuclear facilities in a way that minimized loss of life, they would still have that benefit of doubt. The same way I expect our armed forces to have the benefit of doubt when dealing with the overly-romanticized "insurgents" in Iraq.

Meanwhile, we can not give Iran the benefit of the doubt because of the rhetoric coming from its leader. We have about 60 years of non-stop threats and actions from the Arab world, which still refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

I agree, imperialistic actions led to the creation of Israel. It was not England's land to give. But it was mostly desert land, about the size of the state of New Jersey, there were already a lot of Jews living in the region legitimately and a lot of places have an imperialist history that can not be easily corrected, including our own country.

The Arabs have hundreds of times the land, the other countries in that region refuse to take in or aid the Arab Palestinians because they know to do so will remove pressure on the Israelis. Palestinian suffering is the fault of the Arab world.

That last paragraph is true, and often overlooked by Arab apologists. It's easier for an Egyptian citizen to get a job in Israel than for a Palestinian to get a job in Egypt. It sounds insane, but it's true.

FWIW, we moved an aircraft carrier battle group to the Caribbean (ie off Venezuela) for 2 months of battle exercises. Take that as you may w/regards to our plans via Iran and the world oil market.

I haven't read past the first line of your post. That's right I'm quoting text I haven't read just because you have COMPLETELY misrepresented my position. I simply haven't come out in favor of acting against Iran. I do feel strongly that intervention in other coutries was and is called for.

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I wasn't trying to pass judgement on your own position - just extrapolating the logic of 'the world's policeman' in this case. I deliberately didn't comment on, either pro or against, your post, specifically for this reason. Apologies if it wasn't clear - I was just pointing out the huge juxtaposition in this particular instance.

I really need to hear that from Mr Bigglesworth.

Your doublespeak here is the stuff of legends. You're simultaneously arguing that the idea of Bush attacking Iran is ludicrously absurd and at the same time absolutely necessary to prevent a nuclear device from going off in America. This is a classic wingnut argument style. We saw it with Abu Ghraib (The United States does not torture...but it's absolutely necessary to get the information to keep another 9/11 from happening) and with the NSA scandal (There is no way that Bush is conducting warrantless searches...but they are absolutely necessary to keep the terrorists at bay).

Furthermore, experts say that attacking Iran with airstrikes will only delay their acquisition of nuclear weapons for a few years. You obviously think that they should be kept from getting the nuclear weapons at all and openly mock the diplomatic approach, which means that the only solution left is full scale invasion and regime change.

Look, there's no need to be insulting, just answer the questions. If you can't answer all them, I understand, but at least tell me which one's you can answer. Why all this beating around the bush with non-answers? Practicing to be President? ;)

Your questions are the dumbest questions ever, and they've already been answered by John Galt. "Would nuking of Americans be a bad thing?" WTF? Why even bother engaging in that kind of discussion with you? If you were 5 years old I might humor you, but I give you more credit.

I firmly believe that Iran's end game goal is to shoot Nukes at Israel. Any Muslims killed in the attack will be martyrs. Once the attack is over, and in their minds, all of the Jews are gone, the Arabs can quickly move in and reclaim the land.

I wish we werent in Iraq right now so we could be getting ready for that showdown.

Actually, having the army in Iraq and permanent bases located there is probably a good thing. The proximity of so many resources would make tactical moves against Iran a lot simpler.

What makes you believe that Iran is the stupidest country in the history of the world?

You're saying that they think that that is a stupid thing? I think that they think it would be a great thing for their country and islam.

That is one hell of an assumption to make.

Really? Do you really think assured destruction is palatable to the Iranians?

Yeah Flasch, how is getting nuked by Isreal, USA, France, UK, etc, be a great thing for their country?

How can you still have any doubts about the degree of malice that most fundamentalist Muslims have towards Israel and western civilization? I'm amazed at how people in this country choose to put their heads in the sand over the lessons of 9/11.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ael/index.html

I do not understand how anyone could look at these statements from Iran's leader and conclude that's an appropriate stance and Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

It's the same way Hitler managed to control half of Europe before a shot was fired.

Let's all appease the lunatic dictator and believe him when he says he just wants to generate electricity.

What about the malice that Israeli's show towards Arabs and Palestinians?

A nuclear attack by Iran would pollute holy lands for generations, invite retribution by every major power in the world (not just the U.S.), cause total economic isolation from almost every country they depend upon, cause radioactive rain to fall on Iran and other Middle Eastern nations, and likely cause a nuclear counter-strike by Israel (since Israel has second-strike capability).

So, no, despite the rhetoric of Iran's leadership, I don't seriously believe they would launch a nuclear weapon at Israel. There are certainly lesser, yet still horrible things they would do, but a nuclear strike on Israel just seems stupid to me.

Well, do a compare and contrast, then. I'd be interested in seeing how you justify the comments the Iranian president made at the Rid the World of Israel Conference they're having this week.

I would show malice to an organized group who's documented objective is to wipe me and my people off the face of the earth, yes.

Iran has a theocratic leader that plays to his base. You can't take everything they say at face value. I don't think Iran has started a war of aggresion since they were called Persia.

All things being equal, I don't think anyone would prefer that Iran has nuclear weapons. There just is no viable military alternative. The only course of action with a likely positive outcome is to work towards a diplomatic solution.

I don't see the Israeli's performing gutless acts of terrorism against arabs. They're historically very good at defending themselves, and retaliating when provoked, but I don't see them starting too many fights.

I'm not going to justify his comments, just like I won't justify the below. I just don't see Israel as some peaceful, lamb of a nation.

Quotes by extremist rabbis

* "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [Source: New York Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]

* "It is forbidden to be merciful to them, you must give them missiles, with relish — annihilate them. Evil ones, damnable ones," Rabbi Ovadia Yosef about the Palestinian people [Source: The Times, UK - 4/10/01]

Yosef is the founder and spiritual leader of the Israeli religious party Shas and is regarded as one of the great rabbis of this generation by much of the Sephardic ultra-orthodox community in Israel. However, Modern Orthodox Jews, non-Orthodox Jews, and secular Jews generally view him as a fanatic; his views are routinely rejected by those outside his community.


Quotes by Israeli politicians

* "There is a huge gap between us [Israelis] and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience." -- Israeli president Moshe Katsav. Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001

* "Maybe the Palestinians are like crocodiles - the more you give them, the more they want" -- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post, August 30, 2000

* "[The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." -- Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

* "We say to [Arab rioters] from the heights of this mountain and from the perspective of thousands of years of history that they are like grasshoppers compared to us"; "Anybody who wants to damage this fortress and other fortresses we are establishing will have his head smashed against the boulders and walls." -- Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers. New York Times, April 1, 1988

* "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Meir Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969

The term Palistinian only came to identify Arabs living in what was once the British Mandate of Palestine after the modern day states of Israel and Jordan were created. Before this time, the term Palestinian referred to any people residing in the region, whether they were Jews, Arabs or any other particular ethnic group.

* On February 22, 2004, Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ze'ev Boim suggested that Palestinians are violent by nature due to a genetic defect. Likud MK Yehiel Hazan supported Boim, saying "I think this it is in their blood. It is something genetic. I have not researched this, but there is no other way to explain this. ... Don't believe an Arab, even one who has been in the grave for 40 years." Other Israeli politicians denounced these views as racist.

Quotes by Israeli Military Leaders

* "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." -- Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

* "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Yisrael ... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." -- Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Aharonot, 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

Here's the thing. These people running the show are fundamentalists. They believe Allah will reward them, that even if they die they will die with the highest honors possible.

I doubt they give a crap about what the scientists say about radioactive rain, and they certainly don't give a crap about economic isolation - other countries were happy to help out Iraq in a similar situation. They might even believe they can take on the world, or that Europe would consider it a favor if they nuked Israel.

There have been plenty of atrocities, on both sides of the fence.


I agree. All the more reason to let them handle this themselves.

Israelis have had to fight for their country from day one. You expect them to act like lambs?! They're surrounded by countries that want them off the face of the earth. You expect them to hug it out with their neighbors?

This is assuming they care. Al qaeda glorifies a hotel bombing in Jordan and the majority that die are muslim. The Iranian leader would be glorified as a prophet if he made a killing strike against Israel. You think the aftermath is important in their eyes?

I agree with political realists (which used to be the right-wing view of things) that states behave as rational actors in their own self-interest. Every historical leadership that has been labelled irrational or "crazy" (see, e.g., China, Iraq in the time leading up to the first Gulf War, Nazi Germany, the Soviets, etc.) has actually behaved very rationally when their actions are examined after the fact. Many leaders put on a grand show of insanity, usually for domestic reasons, but also to deter invasion. With that being said, when push comes to shove, states behave the same. They have too much at stake in this world to risk it (which is why failed states are a MUCH bigger problem, IMO).

Now, I agree with you that fundamentalism has the potential to shatter that viewpoint. Fundamentalists in Iran (or in the U.S.) scare me a lot for the reasons you name. However, based on a long historical record, I still believe leaders behave rationally. That is especially the case in modern countries like Iran with elaborate bureacracies. I know the risks if my view is wrong, but I think the risks if we continue the dynamic of labelling every leader crazy/Hitler/irrational ensures a much worse outcome. I think history is on my side and I hope Iran's (or North Korea's) leaders don't prove me wrong. A lot of zealots (religous or otherwise) have come and gone, but when they have been leaders of states, they behaved rationally. I think Iran will do the same.

Thanks for summing up Bush's foreign policy on Pakistan, but we're talking about Iran here.

See my response to Jim, but I will add that Al Qaeda is not Iran and Al Qaeda is not a state. IMO, states act differently than individuals.

In response to the Wikipedia article posted (which is listed in Wikipedia as disputed as to neutrality), most of the quotes are responses to terrorist attacks.

No one suggests extermination of every Arab in the region, with the exception of the nutball rabbi Yosef, who doesn't have access to the weapons, fortunately.

Meanwhile, the Hamas charter explicitly describes the slaughter of every Jewish man, woman and child in the region. And that's a theme commonly repeated throughout the Middle East by leaders who do have access to considerable weapons.

Cool - so then what's the problem with Bush and Iran?

:confused: I'm not sure what you mean.

Hitler started a world war essentially over eugenics. That may be rational, if you believe in eugenics, but it's not a good long-term strategy. Hitler's decision to invade Russia was not a rational one.

Radical fundamentalism is much the same, only it's about religion, not bloodlines. Either way, it's a tremendous threat.

I know there are a lot of people who would like to sit on the sidelines here and let Israel work this out on their own. But if there is a nuclear war in the region, everyone loses. It must be prevented if at all possible, by peaceful means if at all possible.

Well - Mr. Bigglesworth (admittedly, not you) said:

"An attack on Iran appeals to the first for crazy world-view reasons, and appeals to the latter for election reasons. So we are relying on a grown up to put the brakes on, and I ask, who is that grown up in the current administration?"

Doesn't this imply irrational behavior?

Then again, Mr. Bigglesworth may not subscribe to your "rational leader of state" theory, so this tangent may be moot.

And this "slaughter" has been carried out by which Middle East leaders?

There is an important distinction between acting irrationally and miscalculating. Rationality is a method, not an answer. However, with poor information, the method produces a bad answer. Hitler, like many leaders throughout history, made a horrible miscalculation. It doesn't mean he was irrational in his foreign policy.

There is also a distinction between domestic and foreign policy in terms of rationality. Because the global system is anarchy, there are different concerns than in a domestic sphere. A leader can be totally irrational in domestic policy choices, but without the risk of a coup or revolution, there are no checks. However, in an international environment, states have different incentive structures.

I also think it is a questionable statement to say Hitler pursued the war out of a policy of eugenics. Eugenics was certainly integral to his worldview and his domestic policy, but I think it is a leap to say it was the goal of his war.

I agree a nuclear war would be catastrophic. However, I believe the most likely scenario for nuclear weapons use is from failed states. And unfortunately, our foreign policy seems likely to create more failed states.

Everyone loses, some more than others. If Israel is threatened, they're more than capable to deal with the threat. Meddling in these affairs outside of promoting diplomacy is probably not in our best interest.

Yeah, I'm not on board with his line of thinking. I believe Bush's foreign policy operates on the principle of power expansion and is in effect largely because the U.S. can get away with it. I think he has horribly miscalculated the long term costs of his policy, but it is fundamentally "rational." It's sad that super/imperial powers act they way they do, but Bush is not unlike most leaders of empires. He seeks to expand and solidify the power of his state.

Untrue, the war was driven by nationalism. Hitler may have believed in eugenics, but he went to war for the same reasons everyone goes to war: money, or its equivalent.

Hitler believed that the Soviet Union was about to attack, and he also believed that he could quickly take over European Russia and force them to accept defeat, something that was very close to happening. He was wrong, but that doesn't make him irrational. He would have been in even worse shape if the Allies and the Soviet Union had attacked at one time.

What does 'prevented if it all possible' mean to you? Because I think most everyone would say the same thing, but disagree on what is possible.

How is that not a rational leader? Attacking Iran is not guaranteed to result in the US being nuked. If you are going to parse things, almost any decision that ends up with a poor outcome could be considered an irrational decision. But acting in a manner that guarantees that your country gets nuked out of existence is not the same as miscalculating and launching a poorly thought out attack on a country that has no chance of conventionally defeating you.

Let's assume that Israel was NOT capable of defending itself. Would this change your POV?

Unsuccessfully, but that doesn't mean it wasn't attempted.

Take the bombings in Buenos Aires. Or the Beirut barracks. Or the Khobar Towers. The connections are a bit murkier for the latter two, but the Buenos Aires bombings came indisputably from the state of Iran. Or the fatwas issued regarding the Satanic Verses. Or seizing the embassy and holding American diplomats hostage.I'll agree completely that they are acting rationally. I just fundamentally oppose their end goal. But right now, unless Bush or Israel steps up to the plate, they'll get nuclear weapons, start taking control over OPEC and be able to hold the world hostage to their demands. You think Europe is going to stand up against Iranian demands to allow Sharia if those threats are backed up by nuclear weapons? You want to make the comparison to Hitler - Mein Kampf outlined his exact plan and he followed it once in power. Those in power in Iran like Ahmadi-nejad, Khamenei and Rafsanjani have said what they are going to do if they have the power. People like MrBigglesworth want to dismiss it and say it is just pandering to the domestic audience but I haven't seen anything to convince me they don't really mean what they say. It's actually the opposite - the closer I look into the issue the more convinced I am that they aren't just making this stuff up. But that forces you to make hard choices when it's so much easier to ignore the problem and say there is no way they really mean that.

Tell me, what is their plan? Right now, from what everyone is saying, it looks to be this:

Step 1: Collect underpants
Step 2: ???
Step 3: World domination.

It would change the dynamic so much - we can't just flip the "capable/not capable" switch.

Right... because I haven't laid out what I thought they would do with nuclear weapons numerous times in this thread already, including in the very paragraph you quoted. But if you want someone else to spell it out here - http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_iran.html - is a longer article on it from Mark Steyn.

I'm sure what you are getting at here. I don't deny there aren't Al Qaeda/Iran connections. In fact, before the Iraq war, I argued that the Al Qaeda/Iran connections were infinitely more significant than the Iraq/Al Qaeda connections. My only point was about Iran acting as a state to nuke Israel, not that they don't have a lot in common with Al Qaeda.


Do I want Iran to have nuclear weapons? Probably not (I only say probably because I'm fairly persauded by the work of Kenneth Waltz and others that acquisition of nuclear weapons actually causes countries to moderate and be less likely to pursue conventional warfare). However, I do not believe they will use OPEC to "hold the world hostage." There economic self-interest makes that a virtual impossibility. They can certainly cause economic hurt, but "hold the world hostage" seems a bit overstated to me. I also do not forsee Europe allowing Sharia to control judicial systems just because Iran has nuclear weapons. I don't think any state seriously believes Iran (or Pakistan) will use them (for the reasons I argued earlier). Nuclear weapons are a wonderful deterrent weapon, but a horrible offensive one in our modern era. I see Iran's leadership to be a lot like many other governments of zealots throughout history. I just don't see them making a totally suicidal and idiotic choice to use nuclear weapons.

Still all I see is this plan:

Step 1: Collect underpants
Step 2: ???
Step 3: World domination.

Where is step two? Steyn says that Iran will get nukes, then blackmail Europe with them! Newsflash, Europe has nukes too. India doesn't cave in to every demand by Pakistan now that Pakistan has nukes, because India has them too.

As an aside, Steyn has been shown to be spectacularly wrong on Iraq, and is in fact still writing completly wrong analysis. Maybe you should read some articles written by people that were right about Iraq. It's irrational to keep going back and getting the same faulty analysis and expecting it to be good this time.

...prevented, IMO, by the threat Israel and the US poses in defending themselves however that threat becomes nullified if/when Iran can send >20 nukes towards Israel. Should Israel retaliate quickly then those that die would be martyrs, those that dont get, to take the holy land int he name of Mohammed..hey, i hope Im wrong, but people trying to play rational with people that speak irrationally doesnt seem to rational to me.

Sidenote: It's funny, the US has probably contributed to Iran's ramping up of theur nuclear program more than anyone. Branding them as an 'evil' nation, invading one of the 'evil' nations (that just happens to be next door), and then we spread ourselves so thin that we couldn't do much, even if we wanted to.

I wonder if this would've played out different if we didn't invade and occupy Iraq?

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060414/wl_afp/irannuclearpolitics_060414191647;_ylt=ApLGC_UDtrEQb6_TwnBxyldSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Just a thought.

Winner.

It's about time everyone agreed on no longer trusting Bush. Now we can work on fixing the country.

It's absolutely astounding to me that you're more worried about W. than you are about that nutjob running Iran.

Fun with Mark Steyn: this is who BishopMVP is relying on for foreign policy advice.

Yes, let's listen to what he has to say about Iran. :rolleyes:

Here is Steyn on the current situation in Iraq:
His reason why we are losing in Iraq, I kid you not, is because our rhetoric is not nationalistic or jingoistic enough. If only we were to declare that our long war was a war against Islam and make fun of more Muslims, we would turn the whole thing around.

If this is they type of person you are relying on for your Iran strategy, you are in trouble.

Why? W easily has more of an effect on my life than everyone in the middle east put together, and he probably has more of an effect on everyone in the middle east than anyone in Iran.