Comments on: Moving Towards a New Cold War

By: Jim Satterfield

Jim Satterfield — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:28:39 +0000

Not to Iranians, but to their current rulers and the terrorists they support. Did you miss that in my post? The truth is that you’re hopelessly naive. The Chinese still are not our friends. In case you’ve missed the news lately, neither are the Russians.

By: jdledell

jdledell — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:28:39 +0000

Jim – It seems your mind is as closed to Iranians as you believe theirs is closed to us. I’m old enough to remember when the conventional wisdom was those Russians and Chinese were implacable enemies and would never change. Looking back at my wife’s scrapebooks from her great grandfather’s time in WW1 when Turkey was said to also be a strange implacable enemy.

People change as do countries – nothing is forever. The best way to encourage change on BOTH sides is communication and cultural exchanges.

By: domajot

domajot — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:33:47 +0000

Every bad thing said about Amedinejad is ture.
It’s not that he deserves to be treated politely.
It’s not that he doesn’t deserve to be insulted.

What’s important is how we present ourselves to the world. While it’s necessary to speak harsh truth, HOW you phrase those truths (and insults) makes all the difference. If we descend to his rhetorical level, we make ourselves just like him, and become indistinguishable from him.

Instead, if we speak our mind with dignity, we make a contrast that showcases how we are different and thus better, more logical, more civilized, more dependable and more capable of sound judgment.

What is happening now is that much of the world is beginning to couple the US and Iran together as just two crazy counties endangering the world with their war of insults and implied threats.
What we should seek, instead, is to make clear how we are different. That can only be done by rejecting the language of verbal street brawls and speaking with dignity.

We miss the chance to do that again and again.
It’s a huge mistake, IMO.

By: Jim Satterfield

Jim Satterfield — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:25:23 +0000

He is the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is not an ancient civilization. This Islamic Republic has in fact in many ways turned its back on the Persian heritage of their ancestors while attempting to say they haven’t. In addition it must be recognized that he is president of a republic in name only. The description of him as a tyrant is accurate even if considered an insult by him and his sympathizers. Although it must be admitted that he is more the public face of the tyrants that run Iran than the one with actual power.

There is nothing that the United States can do to improve our image in the minds of those who share the attitudes of the current Iranian leadership. Ever. Our acquiescence to the elimination of Israel, should they and their allies be capable of would only temporarily assuage their hostility. However it is not our “freedom” that makes them hate us no matter what this Administration might say. To a religious fanatic it only takes the fact that we do not share their faith. It would never be expressed so openly and it is possible that they can’t even admit it to themselves. We are decadent in their eyes. We are evil. Any conspiracy theory that involves us attacking all of Islam will be believed. It will sustain their hatred and distrust.

Israel and the Palestinians currently serve as a good excuse for many. To others, such as OBL, our presence it Saudi Arabia was the claimed reason. Now that we have no soldiers on Saudi soil the alliance of expediency between the Saudi regime and the United States government is a good enough reason when combined with Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if we had not invaded Iraq Al Qaeda would claim Afghanistan as justification because of course we had no right to retaliate for 9-11. Our involvement with the Middle East has been the beginning. But to the widely scattered fanatical fundamentalists of Islam from now on it wouldn’t matter what Muslim country or countries we have any kind of relationship with. There will still be hostility and terrorism.

And it will not be a Cold War. There will be attacks. There will be terrorism. There will be murder. And there is no realistic thing that we can do to change it.

By: lurxst

lurxst — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:40:12 +0000

A good indication of this is the Leiberman-Kyl amendment that passed through the senate today. An unfortunate piece of political garbage, it serves merely to keep the pressure up in the region and a continued excuse to keep a huge force deployed there. Although modified to be phrased as a general reiteration of common sense defense policy, it does have language that specifically targets Iran’s version of the National Guard calling it a terrorist organization. At its worse it could be perverted by an executive that decides we really need to bomb Iran because they have a political hack leading their country who is currently way-outmaneuvering our state department.

Well stated post, thanks.