so how do you plan to convince America to stop acting like that, to take the big leap of faith that those who say they wish to do us harm don’t mean what they say? How do you convince us that our fears are irrational?

Other, of course, than calling us names if we don’t?

and, by the way, hitting someone you are convinced is going to hit you is not unprovoked.

But I know, fear is driving our decisions and this destroys our ability to make rational decisions. Fear trumps ration every time, with disastrous consequences. As Justice Louis Brandeis put it “We feared witches and burnt women.” Edmund Burke: “No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.” Eisenhower warned “Any who act as if freedom’s defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America.”

I’m not scared of Iran. The USSR once had enough weapons pointed at us to destroy the entire planet several times over. We survived. North Korea and Pakistan have the bomb, as does China. We cannot win a war against Iran, and attacking that nation would only fuel more hatred and retaliation against us. Even if Iran had a nuke today, it could not strike us, and Israel? Israel can take care of itself. There is NO reason for us to invite the wrath of the world. Please, America. Calm down.

Now, stevesturm, I don’t expect to convince you of anything. But for moderate readers out there, we don’t need these fearmonger warmongers to buy us another bucket of trouble. Iraq was not a serious threat to our security and neither is Iran. Once we tone down the rhetoric of fear and hatred, we can and will find peaceful solutions that will do far more for our security than fomenting more conflict in the Middle East.

By the way, we have spent enough on Iraq to completely eliminate Middle East oil as an energy source. We could have pulled the plug on all the mullahs and oil sheiks and sent the price of oil tumbling, shutting off the spigot that fuels these fanatics. The Republicans, obviously, have no more tools in their toolkit than fear and war. Let’s ditch their failed strategies and their lack of vision, integrity and resourcefulness.

thus, it doesn’t matter that Iran claims nukes are for domestic consumption or to protect them from us. all that matters, from our perspective, is whether we believe them. that is why we (I) don’t have a problem with England having nukes, nor would I have a huge problem if South Korea joined the club, as I don’t believe either would use nukes against us, but I have a big problem with Iran doing so, for I believe they intend to use them… against us and our allies. Accordingly, we are entitled, per the above, to do what we think necessary to keep that from happening… and if it means we, as LeMay would say, bomb them back to the stone age, so be it.

Meanwhile, the US has threatened to strike Iran. By our own new rules, is Iran not fully justified in launching a preemptive strike against us?

Just saying….

There is a dilemmma, though/ When we call for action or planning for action, loudly and publically, it validates Iran’s claims atat they are only acting from a position of needing to defentd themselves.

We cite Iran’s threats of genocide.
Iran cites our plans for military action.

It’s this stand-off that needs to broken.
More attention to the language of diplomacy in official USi statements would be one place to start.

The PNAC wrote a letter in 1998 urging Clinton to replace Saddam- by force if necessary, but Clinton decided not to. Many of the signatories ended up in key positions in the Bush administration. Invading Iraq became a no-brainer for people like Paul Wolfowitz who had urged it back in Bush 41’s administration and Dick Cheney, who asked about Iraq as soon as the election was over.

Jason, I also have no problem with planning and I would hope the US military and civilian agencies have plans for any and all contingencies. However, such planning should be kept, for the most part, behind the scenes.

There is a fine line to walk with using war rhetoric as a boost to diplomacy versus such rhetoric becoming a self fullfilling prophecy. I think in the Iraq situation, the war rhetoric was so strong that Bush backed himself into a corner and would have had to go to war no matter what Saddam did. I am convinced that had Saddam heeded Bush’s call to totally open up the country and prove he had no WMD’s, we still would have gone to war. I don’t want to see the same thing happen in Iran.

stevestrum – If the choice between my own child and an Iraqi child occured simultaenously, of course I would pick my own child. However, in the situation being discussed, my own child is NOT in danger. Potential danger, yes, but no current danger. I could NOT stand before G-d and say I killed someone else’s child because I thought maybe, perhaps, possibily the other might endanger my child.

It takes a LOT more confidence in my judgement or the judgement of other fallible mortals before I would agree to start killing innocent lives because I thought some day they might commit a crime. Hey, maybe that would be a good theme for a movie.

I know you see the Iranian leadership as irrational.

Not at all. I always caution my students against the assumption that someone who behaves in ways we don’t like must be “irrational”. I think Ahmedinejad is rational in the sense that he is pursuing his ends by logical means. I just think that the ends he seeks might strongly conflict with U.S. interests.

Whether Iran actually has bad intentions remains to be seen. I have not yet concluded that Iran actually intends to wipe out Israel, but given their statements in that area, I believe it is something that U.S. policymakers have to hedge against. We can’t just hope and pray that it is all “red meat” for domestic political consumption.

As a result, I don’t have a problem with planning for military action (especially when such planning has the side effect of reinforcing diplomatic pressure) but I think much more evidence is necessary before actually executing those plans.

Stevesturm – It would be interesting to see you stand before G-d and make the above statement. I consider your attitude immoral. We are talking about human beings, made in G-d’s image. As a fellow Jew, I cannot believe that your attitude is really this cavalier.

Iran is a proud country with thousands of years of history. They are very much aware that a non-conventional weapons attack against either the US or Israel would bring total devastation to their country. Either the US or Israel alone has the arsenal of hydrogen bombs(up to a thousand times more powerful than fission weapons) would leave Iran inhabitable, aside from probably 50 million dead.

I know you see the Iranian leadership as irrational. I don’t see them as any more irrational than the US leadership. Iranian “end times” enthusiasts have no more a total hold decision making than our own Christian “end timers”.

Again, we have to be careful with Iran and monitor developments closely. The situation, for now is only “potentially” dangerous. My attitude may change, but I recommend eatching carefully how the next 5 years emerge.

Holly – This statement is ludicrous! The latest statistic I can find is for 2004 where the US imported $14.5 billion in Israeli goods. That is a rounding error in our $12 trillion economy. Israeli imports to the US are lower than 43 other countries in the world, again for full year 2004.

Have you ever looked at recent patents? Do so and this will clear up a big misconception in this regard. The only big thing I can think of to come out of Israel is the replacement for the pentium IV, and its not like that was not based on avanced PIII, so meh. . .

They are a country we have sided with for various reasons, but pragmatically are surely not worth pre-emepitive mid east war over. That mess has long been a case of ‘he said she said’ with both sides doing plenty of bad things. Although, I give the hat tip slightly in favor of the Israeli’s overall in that regard, and certainly even more so from a societal standpoint.

The US is highly-dependent upon the State of Israel.

followed by:

The US is technologically and scientifically dependent upon the State of Israel.

It’s assertions like these that baffle me.

The United States and Israel trade with one another. Israel provides us with certain goods and technologies that Americans would not otherwise have, and America provides Israelis with certain goods and technologies that Israelis would not otherwise have.

1) It’s a mutually beneficial relationship. Life in both countries is improved by trade with the other, but neither nation is “dependent” on the other because of free trade.

2) The fact that the United States obtains goods and technology from Israel is not in any way unique. The United States trades with numerous other countries, our businessman work with businessmen from numerous countries to pioneer new techonologies, and our scientists colloborate with scientists from all around the world.

3) The fact that the United States benefits from trade with Israel is indeed a good reason for maintaining good relations with Israel. But the well being of this country doesn’t depend on Israel any more than it depends on any other nation. And it certainly doesn’t mean that our foreign policy should coincide with Israel’s foreign policy.

Right now, the United States is very much dependent on China for both trade and technology. That doesn’t mean that our foreign policy should coincide with China’s foreign policy.

Is it at all posssible to have a discussion about foreign policy without constantly dragging Israel into the discussion? I realize that the bond between the United States and Israel is very special to you, but I think it gets in the way of having a rational discussion.

The United States and Mexico have a bond between them by virtue of their proximity to each other and the degree to which our cultures influence one another. Some of us trace their roots back to Mexico, and some of us even have family members that spend time abroad in Mexico.

But that doesn’t mean we base our foreign policy views on the foreign policy views of Mexico. Nor do Americans of French ancestry base their foreign policy views on the foreign policy views of France, or Americans of German decent base their foreign policy views on the foren policy views of Germany.

If we can all agree on one thing, it is that the purpose of America’s foreign policy is to ensure the well-being and security of the American people. Right now, I don’t think there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that our meddling in the Middle East is doing anything to enhance our well-being or security.

Nick: I don’t claim to speak for him, but you may have misread his claim.

That may very well be the case. I read and re-read Moonage’s comment and was unable to see how the following assertion made any sense:

And although people are quick to assert we’ve lost Afghanistan and Iraq just to prove their point fail to make the more important connections in that the US mainland hasn’t been attacked in six years, which was the main point of going into those countries in the first place.

What does Moonage mean by which was the main point of going into thouse countries in the first place? Is he arguing that an attack on the US mainland by Al Qaeda was the reason we invaded Iraq? Or is he arguing that fear of an impending attack on the US mainland by Iraq was the reason we invaded Iraq?

If it’s the former, his comment ought to be dismissed right away for attempting to link Iraq to 9/11.

If, on the other hand, it’s the latter, then it bears mentioning that fear of an impending attack on the US mainland by Iraq only came about because the adminsitration provided misleading claims about the existence of WMDs, mobile bioweapons labs, unmanned aerial drones capable of attacking the eastern seaboard, aluminum tubes for centrifuges, and yellowcake from Niger.

Secondly, citing the fact that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 as a way to justify or validate the Iraq War (which seems to be the thrust of Moonage’s argument) makes no sense for the reasons I explained above.