POL - Is attacking Iran in our best interests?

[Flasch186]

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.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

That is one hell of an assumption to make.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think that they think it would be a great thing for their country and islam.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

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?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

That is one hell of an assumption to make.

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.

[Solecismic]

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.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

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.

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

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.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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

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.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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'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.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I don't see the Israeli's performing gutless acts of terrorism against arabs.

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

They're historically very good at defending themselves, and retaliating when provoked

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

[CraigSca]

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?

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

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?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

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

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

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?

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.

[Solecismic]

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.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

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

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Solecismic]

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.

[CraigSca]

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Hitler's decision to invade Russia was not a rational one.

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.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It must be prevented if at all possible, by peaceful means if at all possible.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

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.

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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.

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

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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

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

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

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.

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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'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.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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

...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.

[rexallllsc]

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.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

.....hey, i hope Im wrong, but people trying to play rational with people that speak irrationally doesnt seem to rational to me.

Winner.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Winner.

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

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

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

Originally Posted by April, 2003

This war is over. The only question now is
whether a new provisional government is
installed before the BBC and The New York
Times have finished running their exhaustive
series on What Went Wrong with the
Pentagon's Failed War Plan. . . .

[T]hese are the death throes: the regime was
decapitated two weeks ago, and what we've
witnessed is the last random thrashing of the
snake's body. . . .

[F]or everyone other than media naysayers,
it's the Anglo-Aussie-American side who are
the geniuses. Rumsfeld's view that one shouldn't
do it with once-a-decade force, but with a
lighter, faster touch has been vindicated, with
interesting implications for other members of
the axis of evil and its reserve league.

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

Here is Steyn on the current situation in Iraq:

The line here is "respect." Everybody's busy
professing their "respect": We all "respect"
Islam; presidents and prime ministers and
foreign ministers, lapsing so routinely into the
deep-respect-for-the-religion-of-peace
routine they forget that cumulatively it begins
to sound less like "Let's roll!" and too often like
"Let's roll over!"...

My worry is that the official platitudes in this
new war are the equivalent of the Cold War
chit-chat in its 1970s detente phase --when
Willy Brandt and Pierre Trudeau and Jimmy
Carter pretended the enemy was not what it
was. Then came Ronald Reagan: It wasn't just
the evil-empire stuff, his jokes were on the
money, too. In their own depraved way, the
Islamists are a lot goofier than the commies
and a few gags wouldn't come amiss. If this is
a "long war," it needs a rhetoric that can go the
distance. And the present line fails that test.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

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

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.