Sometimes Indecision Is a Good Thing

It's pretty clear to all concerned that Iran is trying to run out the clock by repeatedly feigning interest in diplomacy. Some of former President Carter's statements on this recently are downright laughable, and sound like Mr. Rogers saying: "Let's all play nice now, boys and girls." I'll give him this much: He hasn't changed a lot since the 444 day debacle in '79-'80 with our hostages in Tehran. Meanwhile, Iran inches closer to having a nuclear warhead operational. I'll give President Obama credit for cancelling the missile defense shield and thereby purchasing Russia's likely silence when Israel inevitably strikes Iran's nuclear facilities. Thanks heavens there are solid players on the team like Defense Sec Robert Gates who sees things as they are, and not just how we wish they might be.

It's pretty clear to all concerned that Iran is trying to run out the clock by repeatedly feigning interest in diplomacy.

This sentence would make an excellent workbook question for the task, "Find all the logical fallacies in this sentence. Include weasel words for extra credit."

Thanks heavens there are solid players on the team like Defense Sec Robert Gates who sees things as they are, and not just how we wish they might be.

If Israel bombs Iran's nuclear facilities (which would be hard anyway since they're all over the country), there will be a brand new "things as they are" accompanied by a brand new "not just how we wish they might be," and just assuming for the sake of argument that that brand new reality is even less how we wish it might be than it is now, we will have had a hand in making it that way.

You see, all human entities who exist in this world play a part in making the reality you see around you (with the exception of things that have to do with the laws of physics, that humans don't control). When the U.S. under Bush made a decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, we made a brand new "the way things are" -- one aspect of which was a greatly empowered Iran, now rid of its worst enemy in the region. The U.S. helped to create that new reality. So just remember, if we bomb Iran or allow Israel to bomb Iran, we will be making a new reality. And that new reality may not be all the peoples of the world holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" in a world now filled with peace and no threat of nuclear proliferation because one or more Iranian nuclear sites were bombed. There could be unexpected, un-planned for tragic and dangerous consequences if we act without considering that our actions may turn out significantly unlike the rosy picture we have in mind.

I went along with GWB, Kathy, as did most members of Congress, who gave him the green light to do what was necessary, including going into Iraq. We got our wings clipped in Iraq, no question about it. That doesn't change the reality of the situation in Iran. You and I might be seeing things differently if we lived in Tel Aviv, where - we should remember - scud missiles rained down in large numbers during the first Gulf War, not all of which could be intercepted by Patriot defense batteries. So yes, there is historical precedent for attacks on Israel. It is a realistic threat when the head of a country says he stands for your annihilation. That is the way things are. That's seeing reality and reacting accordingly. Let's remember that President Obama is not alone in seeing this threat from Iran. France and Britain, just to name two, came out with strong condemnations after the revelation by Iran at the U.N. that they have at least one plant enriching uranium. Let's remember that just the other day they tested missiles capable of reaching Israel. There are no good choices in that region of the world. Bombing the nuclear facilities is not a good choice, but it may be the best one we and our allies have at this point.

Kathy - I'll bet Neville Chamberlain is a hero of yours.

Although Ahmadenijad is backpeddling from referring to Israel as the "evil Zionists, who must be removed from Palestinian land"; he still is a legitimate threat to Israel. Now as I've said in the past, I'm not one of those "Israel is always right people". I agree that they should not have kicked out Palestinians from their homeland, to install a Jewish state. That was wrong.

However, Israel IS a state currently. And they have the right to defend themselves. If they receive intelligence that an attack is eminent, they WILL take out the Iranian nuke capability. It may stir up a huge hornet nest in the Middle East, but they will nonetheless do it. The hornet next is actually a goal of Ahmadenijad IMHO.

Ahmadenijad is buying time until he is a nuclear power. He will not offer anything up in the talks. He may give our folks a bone, but his nuclear goal will not change. You may feel safe having a nation that chants "death to America - death to Israel" that has nuclear missles. Pardon me if I do not.

Kathy, do you think there are any circumstances in which bombing Iran would be necessary?

If not, don't you think that puts us at a severe disadvantage at the negotiating table?

If you do think it would be necessary in some circumstances, do you fervently hope that Obama would choose not to anyway, or that he would remain indecisive about the question?

I would agree that careful deliberation is a good thing. Indecision is not, and there is a fine line between the two.

AR, JD

Could you guys tell me when was the last time Iran invaded a neighboring country?

Now, let's play a little game.

Assume for the sake of argument, that Israel/US goes out and successfully bombs every Iranian Nuclear site, what happens after that? Do you really think that the Iranians are going to take that laying down?

Now, my expectation is that after the cameras record the damage, speak to the widows and orphans, and thoroughly trash the image of the US and turn global public opinion against the US, the real fun begins...

A couple of US Oil tankers get blown to smithereens in the straight of Hormuz, and there goes the flow of Saudi Oil to the world. That should do wonders for the global economy... But we are just beginning, the Taliban is extremely under-equipped, I wonder how hard it would be for the Iranians with the tacit support of most of the world to upgrade the Taliban's military capacity, or how hard it would be for them to create the Iraqi equivalent of Hezbollah, not to mention that the area of Arabia in which most of the Oil Fields are have a large Shiite population who aren't exactly thrilled at being ruled by the Saudi family and their Wahhabi fanatics, I wonder how hard it would be to kick off a nasty little insurgency there?

Now overlooking all of this, this is the Middle-East, once you rile up the locals how exactly are you going to protect the OIL producing infrastructure upon which the global economy runs?

Ever heard the words Pyrrhic Victory?

DQ - and you must believe if rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it.

What a mealy-mouthed display of a lack of a backbone. You are basically advocating that any country that might threaten retaliation should be left alone to do what they want, i.e., the wussy's defense against bullies.

No wonder Liberals should not be trusted to run Foreign Policy.

No wonder Liberals should not be trusted to run Foreign Policy.

Well, we could always do what Conservatives love doing, find a bar you've never been in before, insult all the other patrons, start a fight and get your teeth kicked in while the crowd sheers...

When is the last time the US won a war?

After having had you ass handed to you every time in the last fifty years, you'd figure out that you ain't very good at it and try some other means of getting what you want...

Well, let's see.

We were winning in Vietnam until the Liberals freaked out at the sight of dead bodies (in a WAR???) and the pictures of the Tet offensive (which was in actuality a major military loss by the North Vietnamese) and forced us to cut-and-run.

We have won all the other skirmishes and minor wars since (Grenada, Iraq I, Iraq II [after ignoring Liberal calls to cut-and-run], etc.).

Afghanistan is ongoing, with the Liberals, as usual, pulling for us to cut-and-run (hmm, there is a pattern there, isn't there?), while those who actually know how to run a war (the generals) are asking for us to follow the same (successful) strategy we just used in Iraq.

All-in-all, a decent track record. Except where Liberals get into the act.

Once again a nation whose covert [see Cheney's CIA still operative apparently..] powerhold consists of right-wing nut jobs who pray everyday that the world will end...which has the largest world nuclear capability, asking another nation to limit theirs based on them being a "threat" is laughable.

Absurdity stretches itself to new lengths every single day. Just because you've thought something your entire life or daddy taught it to you doesn't mean it usurps logic.

As I've said before to that statement, Silhouette.....
"Rightwing nutjobs that pray for the world to end".
That statement is the biggest absurdity. Those pesky Christians. Trying to end the world and all.

As for the rest of your statement, I have no idea what you are talking about.

AustinRoth put it best as far as the reply to Don Quixote.

As for me. I truly hope we avoid war with Iran. It will be a much bloodier one than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The Persians/Iranians are a proud people. They will fight til there is not one man left standing. They are a great people. They have a rich and beautiful culture. Their government sucks, and threatens the world. Ahmadenijad makes a few valid points - I've studied him. But he is a loose cannon in terms of diplomacy - just like each and every one of the former despots in the past were: Hitler, Hussein, Nassar, etc.

Well, there you have it! Apple-pie guy says "no go". So I must be wrong..lol..

You have no idea about the rest of my statement? No, I think you do. But saying you don't works for the purpose at hand.

Think: "spin"

I happen to know that you're better than this, AR. I won't dignify your line with a substantive answer (I couldn't anyway; it's not a substantive comment), but I won't yet put you on my short list of people who have nothing intelligent or worthwhile to say.

Maybe you're just teed off from our other spat about the Olympics. I'll give you another chance.

First of all, I love the "apple pie guy". That's a riot! I laughed out loud on that one.

The rest of your statement had to do with what your daddy taught you userping logic and something about absurdity stretching itself to new lengths..... What in the heck does that have to do with Iran? I guess I missed it, but I surely wasn't putting out "spin".

I'm the biggest anti-spin guy I know. When I hear partisans put out their schmeel, I call them on it all the time. But I still don't believe in Cheney's right wing hoards of Christian Armageddonists. I don't believe in ghosts either. Don't get me wrong. I know there is a fringe out there on both sides: ultra right-wing Armageddonists and ultra-left wing marxist revolutionaries. They are there, but they are not viable. A slip at the ballot box, however, makes their viability frightenly possible. I'll give you that.

What happened to Leonidas? Usually he's in here mixing it up. Did the mega-thread on Honduras tire him out?

Redbus: It's pretty clear to all concerned that Iran is trying to run out the clock by repeatedly feigning interest in diplomacy.

Kathy: This sentence would make an excellent workbook question for the task, "Find all the logical fallacies in this sentence. Include weasel words for extra credit."

I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time I've used them, and likely won't be the last. Care to enlighten me, Kathy, on the logical fallacies and weasel words?

Nice Neville Chamberlain citation, AR, a bit overused, but appropriate.

AR, they had Sen. John Kerry on the radio the other day, waxing on about Afghanistan and the whole subtext was "Let's get out of there!" It reminded me of why I didn't vote for him in 2004, and made me realize what a big job we Dems have left to muscle up our party.

Stop it Kathy!

This bomb is for mining water on the MOON not for bombing Iran.

Good grief you'd think America just went around invading other nations or something.

Whats a hornet next?

Kathy - What was unsubstantive about my reply, or false? I simply stated facts, and I meant every single word of it. Please show me what I mistated.

As to the Olympic thing, I still don't have a clue why you think I am upset about that. I said before he went that that was a good thing for him to do. After, I said that I thought Rio deserved the win on its own merits, and have made not one comment taking any pleasure in Chicago not getting it.

All I have done is call out the Left for the 'holier-than-thou' attitude towards who did make criticisms, for acting like they would not have done the same.

Where did Silhouette mention anything about christians? Why would you even bring up such.?

kathy - I realized I assumed you were commenting on my reply to DQ. Perhaps you were not. That is the problem with DISQUS. You know which comment you replied to, but without a cut-and-paste reference, I do not.

If you were referring instead the Neville Chamberlain snark, well, that is what it was, a snark.

But your position seems to be 'I hope we don't do anything in our own self-interest. Being nice to our enemies so that maybe they will like us and so the world will see us as pacifists is more important.'

Just my take.

"But your position seems to be 'I hope we don't do anything in our own self-interest. Being nice to our enemies so that maybe they will like us and so the world will see us as pacifists is more important.'"

I can't speak for Kathy, but my take on her position was more along the lines of "Since bombing the crap out of a country with humungous bombs has so rarely been in our own self-interest, nor the interest of the innocent people that get hurt along the way, I hope that we don't do that." Feel free to correct me if I got that wrong

Why is it that Neville Chamberlain's name comes up so often by people arguing for more hawkish approaches to the Middle East? I've heard it used by bloggers and commentors in reference to people who opposed the Iraq War, and more recently, I've heard it used by bloggers and commentors in reference to people who favor a more diplomatic approach to Iran.

Chamberlain didn't become infamous because he talked with his enemies. Nor did he become infamous for not pre-emptively attacking his enemies. He became infamous because Nazi Germany attacked and then occupied another nation, and Chamberlain acquiesced to the Nazis. Nothing like that happened with Iraq in 2002-2003, and nothing like that has happened with Iran.

Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be ravaged by warfare, and yet the United States has not recently invaded or bombed any of those countries. That doesn't make the American people a bunch of Neville Chamberlains, does it?

I think the Chamberlain epithet--like the Hitler epithet and the Stalin epithet--is thrown around far to casually nowadays.

I don't know about Kathy, but I don't see any validity in either of your points. I don’t feel threatened by the Iranians, but the Israelis do and it is they that should do the bombing, not the U.S..

JD

"Rightwing nutjobs that pray for the world to end".
That statement is the biggest absurdity. Those pesky Christians. Trying to end the world and all."

It may be a side issue to the current rock fight going on here, but right-wing nutjobs do pray for the world to end. Consider John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel actively work to bring about Armageddon so they can be saved.


The above statement is accurate. Nutjob Christians do want the world to end.

here a couple links:

http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php...

http://www.alternet.org/story/39748/

Here is a fun new "reality"....

Iran, Syria, SA, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, and Jordan all have nuclear weapons. The energy we, and the world, require to run our the planet comes from this area.

One crazy person sets off a nuke and the entire region goes up in smoke.

Welcome to the first world wide depression...chaos...murder.

This isn't fear mongering...this is a real possibility.

Or we, the western world (Europe and the US), could just drop one big bomb on a handful facilities.

I am not saying that we go it alone, but if we do this with the backing of Europe, the world will see it in a completely different light.

AR
"
But your position seems to be 'I hope we don't do anything in our own self-interest. Being nice to our enemies so that maybe they will like us and so the world will see us as pacifists is more important.'"

And your option appears to be the mad-bomber school of foreign policy. Let's blow the crap out of those we designate. If Kathy's position is too pacifist, yours is too fatalistic. Diplomacy via ordinance is not a logical position to hold.

If we did bomb Iran, project the cost of a gallon of gasoline for you and me. I don't mind killing innocent people, but the cost of gasoline is another thing. <satirical font in force>

Why don't we fix the last two Republican run military screw-ups before we decide who is next.

I went along with GWB, Kathy, as did most members of Congress, who gave him the green light to do what was necessary, including going into Iraq. We got our wings clipped in Iraq, no question about it.

We got our wings clipped? That's a severe understatement, I would say. We made Iran the problem it is now, caused the deaths of over 4,000 U.S. troops and well over 100,000 Iraqis, conservatively estimating; and in general greatly increased anti-American feeling in that part of the world. Now you want to make the same mistake in Iran?

That doesn't change the reality of the situation in Iran.

A reality that U.S. policy played a direct part in creating. Now you want to create another new, even more disastrous reality?

So yes, there is historical precedent for attacks on Israel.

So you want to drop a couple of 30,000-pound bombs -- the most destructive bombs on earth that are not nuclear bombs -- on Iran and its people because almost 20 years ago, Iraq attacked Israel with Scud missiles? It *was* Iraq, right, not Iran?

It is a realistic threat when the head of a country says he stands for your annihilation. That is the way things are.

It's not a realistic threat unless that country actually has the capacity to annihilate you, and is insane enough to try to do so. Neither of those two hypotheticals applies to Iran. Oh, and by the way, Ahmadinejad is only the titular head of the country. The mullahs hold the actual power; they are the ones who would be authorizing any nuclear attack on another country -- if they could do so and were insane enough to try. So Ahmadinejad is very much a red herring in this argument -- albeit one that conservatives never tire of using.

That's seeing reality and reacting accordingly.

No, seeing reality and acting accordingly would be recognizing that (a) Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and if it did would be crazy to use it, since both Israel and the U.S. could wipe Iran out a thousand times over; (b) Ahmadinejad does not make the foreign policy decisions in Iran; (c) the U.S.gave Iran the enhanced influence it now has by eliminating its biggest enemy in the region, despite the fact that Dick Cheney and others in the Bush administration insisted that invading Iraq would have the effect of chastening and reining in Iran -- and thus the U.S. would be well advised to think carefully before making another mistake that could have even more catastrophic consequences; (d) the U.S., by its behavior in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the world has given Iran abundant reason to believe it needs a nuclear deterrent to protect its own existential self-interests, and that using the most powerful non-nuclear weapons on earth against Iran now, at this point, would only confirm that belief; and (e) Iran is, in reality, no threat to the U.S., or to Israel, but could definitely become one if we continue to give the mullahs reason to believe that we want and intend their destruction.

That's reality.

If we are not threatened (using the term broadly) by the Iranians, why would even negotiate then? Why not just let the Israelis do it, if Iran is irrelevant to our national interests? Clearly we have a national interest in the stability of the area, which would include ensuring that international treaties designed to keep the peace are not violated. My question to Kathy is whether she thinks there are any circumstances (short of Iran attacking us, let's say) when it would be in our national interest to attack Iran, even with the understanding that there are severe consequences to doing so. If we take military action off the table, as it appears Kathy wants to do (at least acording to the last line of her post--I wanted to give her a chance to clarify), then there is also no point in negotations. If we are going to enforce international treaties, there has to be a line which cannot be crossed. We can debate where that line is, but first I'd hope we agree that there is a line.

I don't know why either side above is typing any sentences with the word "U.S." in it. Wasn't the whole point of Allahpundit's to suggest Obama has a hard time deciding what shoe to tie first in the morning?

He will never order a strike.......Ahmadinnerjacket knows that too.

HemmD -

You just missed stating my position. I am not advocating mad bombing. But if there is absolutely no concern or credible threat that we would indeed, if we felt it necessary, take proactive action, which is what Kathy seems to advocate, then what deterrence remains? The 'fear' of a UN resolution?

Yeah I know; silly me.

I think we've already covered the fact that anything that Israel does will be seen as backed by the US, ordered by the US, and funded by the US. Whether it be true or not...that is how the Muslim world will view it.

I'm always somewhat taken aback by the emotions Iran brings up among the terrified right wingers. AR loses his balance and JD starts chest-thumping. Let's take a look back 8 years. Nuclear inspectors were in both North Korea and Iran. Bush slung red-meat hash to his base. Lots of tough talk, axis of evil stuff. N. Korea kicked out the inspectors and quickly developed a bomb. Now they're off limits. Iran sees that of the three "axis of evil" nations, the US attacks the one without nukes, but not the one with. Hmmmmmm. Obviously, "axis of evil" nations need nukes to avoid being targets. Congratulations, tough guys.

JD, are you really quaking in terror at Ahmedinejad's stupid bluster? I'll forgive that as you are young enough to have missed the whole "we will crush you" thing from the Russians and similar statements by China. I'll forgive your forgetting that after Khomeini threatened "the Great Satan America" with destruction, Reagan sold him weapons of mass destruction. And sold WMD to Saddam Hussein. And perhaps you're young and hotheaded enough not to think things through clearly, so I'll let that go too.

Iran is upwind of our troops and allies in Afghanistan. The Saudis could also get hit with fallout, as could UAE, Qatar, Israel itself and Egypt. Take a look at prevailing wind maps sometime. You really think we or Israel SHOULD commit an act of NUCLEAR TERRORISM exposing our troops and allies to nuclear fallout? If so, you're completely insane.

Now AR is an old fossil like me, so maybe I'll cut him some slack for acting like we can stop science and technology by force. However, he claims some knowledge of physics, so that's really hard to figure. The pace of advancement in science and technology is so fast, so exponential, that the idea we can keep ANY technology out of the hands of ANYONE is just quaint and almost endearing. Middle East experts say if we destroy everything we can in Iran, it will set them back 2-3 years. Really. To buy a couple of years, you'll become a nuclear terrorist, burning away civilians and kids (several of Iran's facilities are in Tehran, one under the University).

AR, shame on you for your revisionist history of Vietnam. You think 60,000 dead American soldiers, over 100,000 crippled and around 2 million Vietnamese dead wasn't enough? If ONLY we'd pissed away another hundred thousand or so, we'd have won. We were never going to win in Vietnam. Wars of occupation fail. They fail.

Now, time for a reality check. I've pointed this out many times before. No one needs an ICBM to bring a nation--this nation--to its knees. Remember 9/11? Remember box cutters? You guys are still fighting the cold war against ICBMs. There is enough nuclear material in Israel already to destroy that nation. None needs to be created by Iran and delivered by ICBM. There is enough in your local hospital to destroy the property values in your home town for EVER (well, 10,000 years). There is enough unprotected, unguarded "secondary" nuclear waste in this nation to crush our economy. Worrying about warhead tipped ICBMs is just SO 1970.

Yet here you guys are, scared spitless because Ahmedinejad has a big mouth. My suggestion? Build a bomb shelter. Live there.

If you were referring instead the Neville Chamberlain snark, well, that is what it was, a snark.

Yeah, that was it.

But your position seems to be 'I hope we don't do anything in our own self-interest. Being nice to our enemies so that maybe they will like us and so the world will see us as pacifists is more important.'

And your position (and redbus's, and many others) seems to be that bombing Iran is in our self-interest. I don't agree that it is. More generally, you and others seem to operate on the assumption that "military response" and "U.S. self-interest" are interchangeable -- the default position, basically.Naturally, if you start out with that assumption, you will always interpret any argument against bombing our enemies as being code for "being nice to our enemies so that maybe they will like us and so the world will see us as pacifists."

I could just as easily interpret so many conservatives' automatic belief in war as the best option as being code for "I never met a war I didn't like, and the U.S. should always opt for war over negotiation and diplomacy because we aren't safe unless our enemies hate us, and besides we are a superpower and we *can* bomb any country we like, so why shouldn't we?"

No, you got it right. 100 percent. I actually posted my response, above, to AR before I read your take, and basically you've said what I said in different words.

I agree. Well said.

Actually, I don't think they should bomb Iran, either. But it's a moot point, really, because if they did bomb Iran, it would be with our consent, either tacit or stated, and most likely our active help -- as with selling them the bombs to do it. So it's really the U.S. doing it in either case.

I'm not sure we do much "allowing" when it comes to Israeli military action. However they will need over flight clearance to get to Iran for bombing. We should do so openly now by stating so and leave it up to Israel to decide when.

As far as second guessing the, "Muslim world", I think its time to call a spade, a spade, because I think the Muslims appreciate that better than horsecrap.

There's also the Christian Reconstructionist movement in general, which if I understand correctly, underlies and informs the beliefs of people like John Hagee.

Hey, if you're cool with a nuclear middle east...okay, lets allow the entire region to arm itself. What happens to your green dreams with the nuclear fallout of that war spreads across the planet? Sure, we will be forced to into serious alternative energy research, but the planet will be so poisoned that it won't matter.

I'm not worried about Iran nuking us. I don't trust that region with nuclear weapons.

No, they won't. They'll see it in the light of reality -- which is that the U.S. is the prime mover, just as with, for example, the 12-year sanctions regime on Iraq. The right's response to criticisms of the sanctions on human rights grounds was always that they weren't U.S. sanctions, they were U.N. sanctions. Technically true, but it was the U.S. that wanted them and it was U.S. superpower status in the world that enabled us to impose our will on everyone else.

Kathy -

And your position (and redbus's, and many others) seems to be that bombing Iran is in our self-interest.

As I said to HemmD, not quite. My position is that bombing Iran MAY be in our best interest, and it is certainly in our best interest for Iran to be concerned we might. That is the whole essence of deterrence. If there is no concern, there is no deterrence.

There is no reason (nor any excuse) for being irrationally opposed to our use of large conventional bombs, specialized bombs against deeply buried or heavily reinforced targets, or nuclear bombs, nor any reason (or excuse!) for opposing such actions by the USA simply because it means the USA using force (or confrontation, or merely disapproval?) against an enemy or adversary (who "should" be favored?).

Shannonlee, I'm a realist. China can't keep the Internet out and neither can Iran. They can't stop cell phones, and we can't stop nuclear technology. The ONLY country EVER that has nuked anyone is US. However, accidental nuclear releases have happened all over the world. THAT is more of a threat, and I think you're ignoring the greater of two risks. If we blast Iran to buy 2 years, and they finance terrorists to blast their way into hospital radiology departments and civilian nuclear plants, WE lose. I do not fear Iran having nukes. I do think it would be foolish for us to stir up a hornets nest and wrong to betray our own principles by unleashing fallout by our own actions.

nicrivera -

He became infamous because Nazi Germany attacked and then occupied another nation, and Chamberlain acquiesced to the Nazis.

You are wrong, and need to go back and re-read your history.

Neville is infamous for appeasing Germany (the Munich Agreement), legitimizing Hitler, trying to pacify him (the failed 'containment' policy), which ultimately led Hitler to attack and occupy other countries due to his utter contempt and lack of fear of Chamberlain or reprisals, which then finally started WW II. You have your cause and effect backwards.

As it has been said before, I don't think anyone here is talking about us dropping nukes on anyone. And the one time we did use nukes, it was to end a world war....save countless American lives at the price of an enemy that attacked us while pretending to be at the negotiating table. So lets not play that card.

I think your point is that if we do attack with conventional bombs, we will rally the younger generations of Iranians against us. You are saying that technology will help them revolt against the mullahs and we must wait for that to happen. Good points, but we are still talking about a very oppressive government that has been torturing and murdering people from the last protests. Revolt could be a decade down the road.

I'm all for economic sanctions first...talking...UN, EU, everything but bombing...but lets not take it off the table.

If we are not threatened (using the term broadly) by the Iranians, why would even negotiate then? Why not just let the Israelis do it, if Iran is irrelevant to our national interests?

Iran is not irrelevant to our national interests. When did I say Iran was irrelevant to our national interests? Are you suggesting that if a country is relevant to our self-interests, that means we have to bomb that country?

Clearly we have a national interest in the stability of the area, which would include ensuring that international treaties designed to keep the peace are not violated.

Yes, that is true, but how will dropping one or more bunker-buster bombs on Iran, which will cause unbelievable amounts of death and destruction, serve to ensure stability? War is de-stabilizing, by definition. Did bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq stabilize that country or the surrounding region? I hope you don't think it did, because if you do, then how do you explain the fact that Iran is now such a threat to the U.S.?

I don't see how bombing Iran will ensure compliance with international treaties, either. It certainly didn't in Iraq, but more to the point, nothing the U.S. does militarily is going to ensure compliance with international treaties as long as the U.S. continues to routinely violate international treaties to which it is a party, and refuse to sign other international treaties -- treaties that no civilized, decent, or peace-loving government could possibly object to and that in fact so many other countries have signed on to that the U.S. is practically the only hold-out. "Do what I say, not what I do" does not work in international relations any better than it does in parenting.

My question to Kathy is whether she thinks there are any circumstances (short of Iran attacking us, let's say) when it would be in our national interest to attack Iran, even with the understanding that there are severe consequences to doing so.

Yes, if an attack was imminent (REALLY imminent, not made-up imminent, as with the Iraq war). And of course, imminence implies capability. Desire or intention are not good reasons to start a war in the absence of the technological capacity to do so. If we were truly in imminent danger of being destroyed by another country, then attack would be self-defense, and the consequences of not defending ourselves would be just as dire if not more dire than the consequences of doing nothing. In the case of Iran, the consequences of continuing, for now, to do nothing militarily, are not dire -- in fact they are probably beneficial at the moment. Whereas the potential consequences of starting a war are extremely dire.

If we take military action off the table, as it appears Kathy wants to do (at least acording to the last line of her post--I wanted to give her a chance to clarify), then there is also no point in negotations. If we are going to enforce international treaties, there has to be a line which cannot be crossed. We can debate where that line is, but first I'd hope we agree that there is a line.

First of all, I never said we should take the military option off the table. I said we should not bomb Iran. The two are not synonymous. In point of fact, unless the U.S. explicitly states that the military option is off the table (which obviously no president would ever do), the military option is always still on the table -- whether stated in so many words, or not.

Second, as I wrote above, if we are going to enforce international treaties, we must self-enforce our own compliance with international treaties. Period, full stop.

Third, I don't agree that there has to be a "line in the sand" for negotiations to be fruitful. You're talking about setting preconditions, and in my view that hobbles the effectiveness of negotiations from the start. I don't know how you personally would define such a line, but say you, like many other conservatives, think the line should be Iran's agreement to stop enriching uranium and actually following through, with no negotiations until Iran actually stops enriching uranium. Well, *that* is what would make ME ask, Then what's the point of negotiations? What would be in it for Iran? Our agreement not to bomb them? That's not a line which cannot be crossed; that's an ultimatum. You don't negotiate with a gun to the other party's head -- not if you want negotiations to produce anything valuable.

The entire point of negotiating is to determine what each country's bottom line is, and what compromises can be, or must be, made on each side to achieve those goals.

It's like that line in Stevie Wonder's song, "Feeding Off the Love of the Land": "Agree, or war, has been our way of compromising."

Won't work. Simple as that.

Some on this thread want to talk history. Fine, let's talk history, specifically between the U.S. and Iran. It's because of that negative history, beginning with the U.S. propping up the repressive Shah for decades, even though he was a tyrant, that Iran hates us. That was proven in spades in '79 during the hostage crisis, and we saw how far diplomacy alone got us, as milk-toast President Carter in the end resorted to a failed rescue attempt with crashed helicopters in the desert.

So for years under Bush Jr. we had Europe do the heavy lifting for us. Iran doesn't like us, right? Maybe they'll like the E.U. better. Wrong assumption. They keep moving toward the bomb. So do nothing now, and Iran gets the bomb. And do we seriously think that anti-Israel hatred ends with Amadinijad? Radio Free Europe quotes Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei May 2000 speech where he denies the holocaust. You can read the article here. Once again, the United States is not alone in this concern. The concern is international, as evidenced by the recent talks in Geneva. Diplomacy can take us part of the way, but it must be backed up with a credible threat. President Obama - hardly a hawk - seems to understand this when he said that the "international community" has put Iran on notice because of its nuclear threat, and would not rule out military action, though he prefers diplomacy. I'd say that some TMVers have to be pretty far left to (apparently) be staking out a position left of our President.

Neville is infamous for appeasing Germany (the Munich Agreement), legitimizing Hitler, trying to pacify him (the failed 'containment' policy), which ultimately led Hitler to attack and occupy other countries due to his utter contempt and lack of fear of Chamberlain or reprisals, which then finally started WW II. You have your cause and effect backwards.

I stand corrected. Nazi Germany invaded (or rather annexed) the Sudetenland after the agreement, and not before as my comment implied.

But I still don't see how Chamberlain handing over the Sudenland to Nazi Germany is analogous to today's situation with Iran. Iran has not invaded or annexed any territory in recent history, nor has the United States or any other world power acquiesced to Iran doing such a thing in the future.

Given that Chamberlain is most reviled for the Munich Agreement, I just don't see how the analogy fits. Opposition to the First Gulf War would probably be a better analogy (since, in that case, Iraq occupied a foreign country). Yet even in that case, refusing to take one's country to war with Iraq would not have been the same thing as meeting with Hussein and giving him cart blanche permission to occupy Kuwait.

AR
"
You just missed stating my position. I am not advocating mad bombing. But if there is absolutely no concern or credible threat that we would indeed, if we felt it necessary, take proactive action, which is what Kathy seems to advocate, then what deterrence remains? The 'fear' of a UN resolution?"

When exactly did Iran get ICBM rockets? The threat is to Israel, and they are the ones who must react as they see fit. If they bomb Iran, they risk multi-state war. Maybe they should consider negotiating with the Palestinians to create the two state solution.
Even Iran knows that the Israelis have 20-30 A-bombs, so it's not like Iran can proceed with impunity.

Kathy, it seems to me that somewhere between the neocon position that led us (ill-advisedly) into Iraq and your position that appears to allow no military option is the "third way" that President Obama is trying to find. Let's hope that the recent diplomatic engagement in Geneva between Iran and six other nations (including the U.S.) is a harbinger of better things to come. But I have a sneaking suspicion that what they'll show to inspectors (if they do) will just be window dressing. In the end, it boils down to trust. I'd like to think that we can trust Iran's leaders (not just the President, but the mullahs). The violent repression after the last elections in Iran sure gives me lots of reasons to think they are people of character...not.

from redbus"
"Let's hope that the recent diplomatic engagement in Geneva between Iran and six other nations (including the U.S.) is a harbinger of better things to come."

When did diplomacy become "being indecisive?" This entire thread appears to demonstrate that the majority of people here are just too young to remember when the US employed diplomacy to try to sway through discussion and not just immediately bomb stuff.

Bush's Iraqi debacle is not the way we always done things. I for one don't see hesitation in Obama's actions concerning Iran, I see state-craft. George senior at least got a group of nations to fight together in Iraq/Kuwait. What happened under junior should be seen as an foreign policy anomaly, not as the new paradigm. Junior has made everybody think of guns or no guns as the first and only solution. That's not true, people have just forgotten.

The comparison is actually more apt than you think. Any agreement to allow, or by inaction to allow, Iran to develop nuclear weapons or capabilities is certainly analogous.

However, I was talking from the bigger picture both prior to the Munich Agreement when Hitler was allowed to violate the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno treaty by rearming, to post- Munich Agreement when Hitler's intentions had become clear, and yet Chamberlain still only talked appeasement and containment.

Iran continues to ignore all nuclear treaties, U.N. resolutions, inspection requirements, etc., while Obama answers with talk of a nuclear free world, and purposely refuses to follow through at the UN with the evidence of Qom, because it didn't 'fit his narrative'. When France is showing more backbone than the U.S., something is rotten indeed in the state of affairs.

In other words....

We lost in Vietnam, and blamed the liberals.

In Iraq 1, we got Iraq out of Kuwait, so if that's winning, we won. It was not a win for the Iraqi people, however, because they got 12 years of punitive sanctions that killed between 1.5 and 2 million Iraqis, and in the immediate aftermath of the war, Saddam Hussein slaughtered hundreds of Kurds with our tacit consent, and using aircraft we gave Saddam after the end of the war. These conditions, and more, led directly to Iraq 2, which was and is a disaster -- not a win at all. We did succeed, to a certain extent, in cleaning up the mess from the insurgency that our invasion and occupation led to, but that's not winning the war, as much as conservatives want to believe it is. Iraq 2 is not a "skirmish," by the way.

Afghanistan is an ongoing disaster, probably an irreversible failure at this point, as a direct result of former Pres. Bush's starting a second, totally unnecessary war with the war in Afghanistan very much still going on. The resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is traceable to those previous eight years of spectacularly incompetent decisions by GWB, and is probably doomed to failure now because of that.

Here, too, as in Vietnam, conservatives would rather blame liberals than George W. Bush.

As for Granada, you've got to be kidding. If the most powerful nation in the world cannot "win" a war against a tiny, poverty-stricken island in the Caribbean, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Hmmm. Come to think of it... the most powerful nation in the world invading a tiny, poverty stricken island in the Caribbean? Forget it. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

AR
"
You just missed stating my position. I am not advocating mad bombing. But if there is absolutely no concern or credible threat that we would indeed, if we felt it necessary, take proactive action, which is what Kathy seems to advocate, then what deterrence remains? The 'fear' of a UN resolution?"

When exactly did Iran get ICBM rockets? The threat is to Israel, and they are the ones who must react as they see fit. If they bomb Iran, they risk multi-state war. Maybe they should consider negotiating with the Palestinians to create the two state solution.
Even Iran knows that the Israelis have 20-30 A-bombs, so it's not like Iran can proceed with impunity.

Kathy -

We lost in Vietnam, and blamed the liberals. That is correct.

Iraq 1 Oh God, the hypocrisy again from you! So, Bush I follows the UN mandate, and you blame him for not acting unilaterally. in Iraq II, the world hates us because we acted unilaterally. Have you no shame?

And while the Liberal Left doesn't like what we did in Iraq, the people do, and despite what you wish were true, we have indeed won Iraq.

As for Afghanistan, just ask Code Pink.

You do indeed come off as a self-hating American that hopes nothing but failure and irrelevance upon your own country. I am not saying you are, but you look like a duck, waddle like a duck, and quack like a duck.

Austin,

Your comments show that you know well enough what Chamberlain did. Are you sure that's the analogy you want to make? The guy handed over a territory of a sovereign nation to another sovereign nation.

One could make a comparison between any two people or any two situations. That's the art of analogy. But some analogies fit better than others. If we're going to start make analogies to Chamberlain, I could raise the names of several prior administrations who acquiesced to (and even sought alliances with) corrupt dictators, but then I would just be doing what you're doing.

I don't mind you going back in history and trying to point out mistakes that we should not try to emulate. But somehow, I don't think United States foreign policy post-WWII is going to validate the more hawkish or proactive foreign policy that you seem to advocate. The security of this country seems to becoming more tenuous because of our hawkish policies . . . not in spite of them.

AR
"Iran continues to ignore all nuclear treaties, U.N. resolutions, inspection requirements, etc., while Obama answers with talk of a nuclear free world, and purposely refuses to follow through at the UN with the evidence of Qom, because it didn't 'fit his narrative'. When France is showing more backbone than the U.S., something is rotten indeed in the state of affairs."

And when are you going to call for Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Maybe Iran's insistence for nuclear comes from the fact that Israel, as a client nation under US protection, doesn't have to play by the same noble rules and procedures that its neighbors do. As long as the rules don't apply to each state, Iran et al feels that they don't have to play that game either.

The hypocrisy of American foreign policy concerning Israel is always swept under the carpet when Americans talk about the mid-east. We have enforced uneven policy that only inflates the hatred. Israel can bull doze homes as it sees fit, but holy hell breaks loose if any people challenge their particular form of justice.

"while Obama answers with talk of a nuclear free world"

Exactly what does his statement mean? Is it merely the silly feel-good lefty mental fluff, the naive idealism (while Iran continues to work on nuclear weapons, as well as meddle in Iran and remain routinely the #1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and to make its neighbors nervous)? Or is it what often is meant in instances like this, going back to when libs chose the side of the USSR (as well as the Arabs, once the Arabs aligned with the USSR and Israel was displaying success at defending itself from annihilation by its enemies) in the "freeze" movement, and in trying to disarm Israel (a responsible, trustworthy party, unlike Iran and North Korea) as part of the anti-USA-and-Western (and anti-Israel) "peace" and "nuclear-free Middle East" and "nuclear freeze" (and disarmament of the West, not the USSR) activism?

The only consolation we have is that apparently Obama signed an agreement (which hopefully carries the meaning it can be trusted and will be honored) with Israel not to interfere in Israeli nuclear policy, and that accompanying the termination of the European missile shield (naive, appeasing the Bear, nursing a long-held pathology against missile defense or against Western defense, once again, who knows) Obama is at least committing with words to theater defense and sea-based defense, so hopefully it means he hasn't neglected the obvious first thing anyone thinks about regarding conflict with Iran:

[the Strait and shipping stare everyone in the face; also nearby are all the oil facilities of Iran's neighbors, which have been predicted by some of us and named at least once by an Iranian official as possible targets in a conflict]


http://hormuz.robertstrausscenter.org/about_strait


http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_C...

AR
"You do indeed come off as a self-hating American that hopes nothing but failure and irrelevance upon your own country. I am not saying you are, but you look like a duck, waddle like a duck, and quack like a duck."


Come on man, you can do better than that. Don't be rapping yourself in America's hegemony.

Iraq 2 was an example of the very best 3 stooges diplomacy. Osama poked our eyes so we slapped Iraq's face. Don't be quoting it as some kind of noble purpose BS. If liberals did anything, they stopped the beating of innocent bystander. You may now wish to assure yourself that saddam deserved it, but that's a different thing from what happened. Don't rationalize after the fact.

If you're so worried about Iranian nuclear capability, when are you going to call for Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? As long as Israel gets to play by different rules than everybody else, don;'t blame Iran for ignoring your pronouncements. Israel can bull doze Palestinian houses, but heaven forbid anyone striking back against injustice. With Israel as the client state of the US, justice in the mid-east really means just us.

Iran has no reason to trust anything the US says. Consider the Shah, replete with torturing secret police, installed when the CIA took down the legally elected Iranian president. You know as well as I that most of the American hatred comes not from envy or politically radical rhetoric, it comes from our own actions. Take a look at what "American interests" have cost people around the world. Our foreign policy has not been moral policy. Blame half of American for being "un-American?" Since when does violence define the American way of doing things? And when did diplomacy become self-hating?

Bush 1 follows what UN mandate? What are you talking about?

By "the people" do you mean the American people, or the Iraqi people? Neither is true, but if it's the second that you mean, you should point to some support for your claim.

Yeah, I know about Code Pink's change of position when? yesterday? That's your entire argument for saying we won there?

I choose not to answer your last two sentences the way I'm tempted to, and would really like to. The only reply I will make is that if you're going to deal in toxic waste, I will stay far away from you, because that stuff can kill you.

Wow. I had no idea what kind of food fight I was walking into when I decided to see what all the comments were about here. So, give me a plate of spaghetti and a couple of slices of pie, here we go.

First, virtually everything we've ever tried in the Middle East has blown up in our arrogant faces, with the possible exception of our relationship with Jordan and that took an American to marry the King. Remember the Shah? Lebanon? Embassy hostages? Arming Saddam for war with Iran? Basing troops in Saudi Arabia to give an excuse to a certain Osama bin Laden? Our track record isn't all that good.

That should come as no surprise. American foreign policy consistently makes the same mistake...believing that other cultures think and respond as we would. Unfortunately they do not, and no matter how much proof of that we see, we cannot bring ourselves to believe that it is true.

The discussion about how best to "stop" Iran from going nuclear is, my view, a waste of intellectual energy. If they are hell-bent on going nuclear, they will. Negotiations won't stop them; sanctions won't stop them; ignoring them won't stop them; and a few MOPs won't stop them. In an odd way, the more we protest and threaten, the more hell-bent they will become. We are to them, after all, the Great Satan, and why would they capitulate to the Great Satan?

So what to do? First, accept that Iran will probably go nuclear. Second, begin work now on deterring the use of that weaponry once realized instead of chasing our tails trying to pre-empt it.

Give me a minute to slip on some rain gear & you can all grab your mashed potatos and dinner rolls, and start throwing.

Bush 1 follows what UN mandate? What are you talking about?


gee Kathy, you are just proving you have no clue what you talk about. Bush I responded via a mulri-national coalition under the auspices of UN resolution 678, among others, allowing for the liberation of Kuwait, but specifically not allowing coalition forces to invade Iraq. So, even though his generals and many diplomats urged him to do so, he did not. You now attacked Bush I <i<In Iraq 1, we got Iraq out of Kuwait, so if that's winning, we won. It was not a win for the Iraqi people, however, because they got 12 years of punitive sanctions that killed between 1.5 and 2 million Iraqis, and in the immediate aftermath of the war, Saddam Hussein slaughtered hundreds of Kurds with our tacit consent, and using aircraft we gave Saddam after the end of the war. for not disregarding that UN mandate unilaterally.

Hypocrisy of the highest order, given your stance on Bush II and Iraq II. I have now come to doubt your intellectual capacity to even be aware of how duplicitous your are being, however.

"If they are hell-bent on going nuclear, they will. Negotiations won't stop them; sanctions won't stop them; ignoring them won't stop them; and a few MOPs won't stop them. In an odd way, the more we protest and threaten, the more hell-bent they will become. We are to them, after all, the Great Satan, and why would they capitulate to the Great Satan?"

That is simply not true. As has been said before, there is a very large young liberal movement in Iran that is very interested in not only their own freedom, but also in becoming part of the international communitee. The international communitee needs to do a very careful dance of keeping the hard liners in the iranian government from getting the bomb, while encouraging the younger generations to rise up. Iran is not North Korea.

Saying we can't stop them, or more importantly that they cannot stop themselves, is very defeatist.

Hi there all: Just if you would, continue your debates; please dont attack each others' intelligence, character or other ad hominens. We have at TMV one of the few political sites online where people can debate, discuss, teach, learn without other readers and commenters having to scroll through yards of private fights and mono attacks. The rule here: stay to the subject of the post, no ad hominem attacks on writers or commenters. Appreciate it.

I'm not mom, just the deputy.
dr.e

Shannonlee _

Can't tell you how much I admire your optimism. If by "a very large young liberal movement" you mean those in the streets after the recent election, please remember the opposition candidate they supported was as much a proponent of the nuclear program as the current adminstration. Also remember that the "liberal movement" it's really not all that liberal) is currently being actively and quite effectively suppressed. Third remember that the mullahs rule and they pretty much don't give a rip what the west thinks of them; to the mullahs, we are infidels.


The chances of the "liberal movement" coming to power in Iran before Iran goes nuclear are near zero.

The example I suggest is India/Pakistan. Much the same fear swept about as they went nuclear. To date we have have effectively deterred the use of those weapons. The longer we put off the deterrence question vis-a-vis Iran, the less time we will have to formulate it when the need arises.

Your ever faithful defeatist,

tidbits

All-in-all, a decent track record. Except where Liberals get into the act.

At best a stalemate in Korea, last time I checked North Korea was a communist nation, member of the "Axis of Evil" with Nuclear weapons...
In Vietnam despite killing a couple of million Vietnamese, dumping more bombs on Laos and Cambodia than we did on Germany, we got our asses handed to us.
In Iraq despite 18 years of war, sanctions and occupation, we barely control the ground our troops are standing on, the second we leave the country, the Iraqis will do whatever they damn well please... Hell, they are barely waiting for us to leave
In Afghanistan, after 8 delightful years and lord knows how many billions of dollars, we can't even protect the Embassies of our Friends and Allies, need anyone say more?
Republicans and war:
Representative Patrick McHenry, R-NC - did not serve. Saw fit to endanger American troops' lives after a visit to Iraq by violating operational security and helping militias target their mortar attacks on the Green Zone.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve (1)

Senate Assistant Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-MI - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl, R-AZ - did not serve.

Senate Republican Conference Vice Chair John Cornyn, R-TX - did not serve.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair John Ensign, R-NV - did not serve.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH - did not serve.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-MO - did not serve.

House Republican Conerence Chair Adam Putnam, R-FL - did not serve.

House Republican Policy Committee Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI - did not serve.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-OK - did not serve.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani - did not serve.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney - did not serve in the military but did serve the Mormon Church on a 30-month mission to France.

Former Senator Fred Thompson - did not serve.


Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve (1). "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."

Former House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve

Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve. (An impressive medical resume, but not such a friend to cats in Boston.)

Rick Santorum, R-PA, formerly third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve. (1)

George Felix Allen, former Republican Senator from Virginia - a supporter of Nixon and the Vietnam war, did not serve. (1)

GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?

VP Cheney - several deferments (1, 2), the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service") (1)

Former Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve (1, 2); received seven deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State

Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve. (1)

Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve (1), too busy being a Republican.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve (1, 2)
Former President Ronald Reagan - due to poor eyesight, served in a noncombat role making movies for the Army in southern California during WWII. He later seems to have confused his role as an actor playing a tail gunner with the real thing.
"B-1" Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes (Orange County Weekly article). Enlisted only after the fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?) student deferments
Rush Limbaugh - avoided the draft, did not serve, anal cyst.
Republicans, amazing how eager they are to send other people's kids to die in wars in which they are unwilling to participate..
Republicans, the party of the ChickenHawks...

AR,

How was I supposed to know that's what you meant by the "UN Mandate," when I never mentioned "not invading Iraq" as a reason why we didn't win? As you must know, since you pasted in what I wrote to support my contention that we didn't win in any larger sense: (1) that we stood by while Hussein slaughtered the Kurds after encouraging them to revolt, AND with aircraft that we gave Hussein; and (2) that the punitive sanctions we imposed, through the UN, after the war & for the 12 years following killed up to two million Iraqis and added immeasurably to the suffering there, the anti-American feeling, etc., etc.

What do those two points have to do with any U.S. decision "not to invade Iraq" after the Gulf War?

Added: To make this perfectly clear, since I seem to have confused you, I know perfectly well that the UN authorization for the Gulf War only allowed us to get Iraq out of Kuwait. I know that some in the Bush 41 admin wanted him to forge ahead and overthrow Hussein. I know that Bush 41 did not want to do that because the UN had not authorized it. I know all that. How does that connect with encouraging the Kurds to rise up and then allowing them to be slaughtered from aircraft we provided, or with sanctioning Iraq for 12 years? What is the connection, there, in your mind?

That is a devastating indictment, DQ. Thank you for taking the time to write it up. It surely must have been very time-consuming.

I'm having trouble believing this, but I actually agree with you over tidbits. Pinch me. :-)

A hornet "next" is a hornet "nest" that was mistyped by an extremely tired Jefferson Davis.

As far as the Christians and Silhouette, go back and read his posts. There it is.

Kwuait, KSA, UAE, Egypt, and Jordan do not have nuclear weapons. The Syrians may have nuclear weapons since that's where the Iraq's WMDs ended up. Who knows? Well, I guess the CIA knows, but I don't.

I personally agree (sort of) with Obama that we should get rid of all nuclear weapons. Then bomb the crap out of anyone who processes uranium for weaponization. Then, and only then, would we have the moral high ground to say, "you can't have nuclear weapons".

Edit: hmm... somehow the first part of my comment get deleted. Here it is again:

"When did I say Iran was irrelevant to our national interests?"

You didn't. Father Time did by suggesting that Iran was Israel's problem.

"Are you suggesting that if a country is relevant to our self-interests, that means we have to bomb that country? "

I never said anything close to that. As someone who rightly pushes back when you feel people are misrepresenting your position, I'm surprised that you would say that.

"War is de-stabilizing, by definition. "

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the alternative isn't worse. (For the record, I wouldn't advocate attacking Iran right now. I would support strict sanctions, with the possibility of military action if Iran continues it's current course).

"First of all, I never said we should take the military option off the table. I said we should not bomb Iran."

These two statements seem contradictory. If the only justification for war is if we are in imminent danger of attack, then by definition that is taking the military option off the table as far as enforcing international agreements is concerned. It seems your trying to argue that we can say that we won't bomb Iran, but as long as we don't tell Iran that, then technically the military option is not off the table. I give more credit to Iran to believe that they wouldn't call our bluff.

"You're talking about setting preconditions"

The line in the sand, in my opinion, is that you can't violate international agreements that you've already agreed to. If you want to negotiate new terms, that's fine, but in the meantime you have to stick to what you've previously agreed to. As far as what international agreements the U.S. had agreed to and then not followed through with, I humbly plead ignorance, so you can fill me in if you want. I'm not interested in agreements that we didn't sign on to, whether for good reason or not.

Hey, wait a minute there Green. Hold your horses.
Yes, I was a baby when Kruschev ranted at the UN.
I remember Khomeini and Reagan's weapons for hostages deal with money to benefit the Contras.

I am over 40 years old, bro. So I'm not a kid by any stretch of the imagination.

With that said, I NEVER advocated nuking Iran. I never mentioned that. Look at my other post to ShannonLee. I actually advocate getting rid of all nukes and THEN bombing the crap out of anyone who does not dismantle the program.

But since you brought up Kruschev....
Talking to him settled nothing. Likewise, talking to Ahmadenijad will settle nothing. It took a nuclear showdown in Cuba, with fingers nervously hovering over the "button", to settle that one. Or did you forget that? These clowns (Kruschev, Ahmadenijad, Hitler, Kim Jong il) do not think like the rest of the nations in the world community. They are or were bent on world domination of some sort. You can't negotiate with that mentality. We have to be stewards of history here. If it didn't work in the past (and that includes bombing) then don't do it today.

Kathy -

Always fun to throw a couple of jello cubes into the food fight. Don't worry too much. I was just doing a little rabble rousing. If anyone can figure out to how to stop Iran from going nuclear without starting some new and unpredictable conflagration, I'm all for it...just not sure it can be done without starting a new and unpredictable conflagration.

You got a Like from me for preferring Shannonlee's argument. Just my contrary nature.

g.c.

I noticed that you didn't go through the list of Democrats that did not serve. I would bet a Pepsi that the DNC list is MUCH bigger than the one you put out there.

I'm glad you don't write history books, although someone with your view will probably revise it somehow.
You are correct about Vietnam. That's what we are trying to avoid in Afghanistan. An unclear strategy and goal will put us on the same path we were on with Vietnam.

You are totally incorrect about Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally remember Hillary Clinton and others revamping their support of those wars. But that's ok since Hillary served in the military. Oh wait. She didn't did she? I remember John Murtha (who DID serve) saying that we have lost the war in Iraq. (You see what military experience gets ya?). That statement put our troops at risk, and stood to lessen morale. I'm glad we invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban. But then, we stupidly invaded Iraq before securing Afghanistan. As Hitler found out, it's hard to fight a two-front war.

I understand the logic behind invading Iraq even if it was based on lies. If we had Iraq, then we surrounded Iran. And Iran has been our sworn enemy for 30 years. That statement is backed up by both parties' members in the Intelligence Committee. So with Afghanistan invaded because of 9/11, and Iraq invaded because of fabricated threat, we now have the enemy, Iran, surrounded. And when you corner a fox, they tend to do stupid things, like pursue nuclear weapons.

JD Show a citation where them Dems are bigger chicken hawks.

As someone who rightly pushes back when you feel people are misrepresenting your position, I'm surprised that you would say that.

Well, adelinesdad, that's why I posed it as a question and used the word "suggested." I got the impression that you were suggesting a link between our self-interest and bombing Iran, because you asked me if I didn't think that peace and stability in Iran's part of the world was in our national self-interest. Since the disagreement here is about whether or not it's a good idea to bomb Iran, and since you have sort of been on the "yes it's a good idea" side of that argument, I did assume that you were questioning me on the national self-interest thing because you thought if I didn't want to bomb Iran, maybe I didn't think we had any self-interest there.

Is that perfectly unclear now?

"First of all, I never said we should take the military option off the table. I said we should not bomb Iran."

These two statements seem contradictory. If the only justification for war is if we are in imminent danger of attack, then by definition that is taking the military option off the table as far as enforcing international agreements is concerned.

They're not contradictory at all. You can have it in your mind that a military option still exists without explicitly announcing it to all and sundry, or using it as a threat in negotiations. Negotiations really don't have much of a chance to work unless you start out with a clean, empty slate. If you start blustering and drawing lines and saying don't cross this line or else, then negotiations are much more likely to fail.

Having said that, I was referring to the military option in a more general sense, not with specific regard to enforcing international agreements. I did go back and look at your original question about this and I see that you did use international agreements as a context, so I missed that. I do believe that the military option is the wrong one for the U.S. to use if the purpose is to enforce international agreements, for the reasons I've stated before -- basically, the hypocrisy factor. That still does not mean that you have to *announce* publicly and out loud, that you are abandoning the military option. I mean, it's not my intention to get all esoteric and metaphysical here, but if you don't bring up the military option at all, either to threaten it or take it off the table, then by default it's still an option. Don't you think?

The line in the sand, in my opinion, is that you can't violate international agreements that you've already agreed to. If you want to negotiate new terms, that's fine, but in the meantime you have to stick to what you've previously agreed to. As far as what international agreements the U.S. had agreed to and then not followed through with, I humbly plead ignorance, so you can fill me in if you want. I'm not interested in agreements that we didn't sign on to, whether for good reason or not.

Okay. One: The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The U.S. abrogated it unilaterally during the previous administration -- meaning, Bush did not negotiate new terms. He just announced we were no longer going to abide by it.

Two: The Geneva Conventions. I assume I don't have to provide details about this one.

Three: The U.N. Charter: The U.S. has violated the requirements for launching a self-defensive war repeatedly.

In addition to outright violations, the U.S. has enforced (or tried to enforce) international agreements selectively -- the most glaring example being Israel, whose nuclear program the U.S. politely ignores (not even acknowledging it exists) while threatening to attack countries like Iran for violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (of which Israel is just as much in violation as is Iran or any other country other than the six nations permitted to have nuclear weapons).

19% of all House Democrats ever served in the military.
40% of all House Republicans ever served in the military.

http://clerk.house.gov/ (for numbers of D and R members.
http://www.navyleague.org/legislative_affairs/H... for numbers of each that are veterans.

So yes, Democrats are much bigger "chicken hawks" in terms of military service. They are less hawkish in foreign policy, but not based (in general) upon military experience. There are exceptions on both sides of the aisle, but the numbers above (19% versus 40%) speak volumes.

Someone owes me a Pepsi.

Nope. No "christians" anywhere to be found. Some praying right wing nut jobs, but no christians. Did you commit a truth stretch….?

"You can have it in your mind that a military option still exists without explicitly announcing it to all and sundry, or using it as a threat in negotiations. "

Agreed. I haven't said that we need to be explicit about it. You're the one that was explicit that was should not bomb Iran under any circumstances except if they are about to attack us. But yet you have said that that is not the same as taking the military option off the table. I still don't understand how those two positions are reconciled. But that's OK. I think I'm just missing a nuance in there.

Regarding hypocrisy, you have a good point. But I do think there are some differences between what Iran is doing and the examples you sited.

In the case of 2 and 3, those are things that we are no longer doing and the new administration has officially renounced. So it's not comparable to something Iran continues to do and has not renounced. If Iran would renounce what it is doing and provide evidence that it is sincerely committed to stopping its nuclear program, things would be different.

In the case 1, it isn't good to just back out of a treaty like that, but at least we announced our intentions, rather than saying we were abiding by the treaty and then not doing it.

As for nuclear issues, as far as I understand Israel has not signed the NNPT, and the US also has not agreed to give up its nukes. (I understand we have agreed to reduce the number over time, which Obama says he's working on. But you may have a point that we haven't done a good job with that. I don't know the exact numbers).

I should also clarify that of course I don't believe that we should bomb every country that violates some treaty. In some cases the proper response is just to cut off whatever benefit that country was receiving under the treaty, and in all cases we should exhaust all other alternatives first. However, with the nuclear agreements it seems to me that the stability of the region, and also our own safety, is at risk which makes this particular agreement extremely important for the international community to enforce, even at great cost if necessary. Of course those costs, which would be great, need to be carefully considered.

Kathy -

You were the one who raised the specter of what Saddam did after the Gulf War, not me. We certainly did NOT 'support' Saddam, we certainly wanted more than UN sanctions for those 12 years (part of the reason we DID eventually act unilaterally).

As for the Kurdish uprising, you will never see me defend our lack of follow-through after encouraging them to rise up. It is indeed one of the blackest moments in US foreign and military history, and can only be called a disgrace.

Perhaps I haven't been clear about the fallout issue. We don't have to "nuke" Iran to release radioactivity. That's probably exactly why Iran doesn't tell us about a facility until it contains fuel. They are altogether too close to nuclear Israel. My point is that blowing up a facility with nuclear materials in it is terrorism, just as if terrorists managed to blow up a US nuclear power plant or chemical plant.

As for Khrushchev, I didn't claim that talking did any good; just that no one needed to bomb anyone's facilities. Just as Russia always knew it would cease to exist if it unleashed warheads on the West, Iran also knows its history is over if it attacks Israel or the US. That's deterrent enough for me. I am not afraid. It isn't a matter of our adversaries thinking clearly. It's a matter of US doing so. If Khamenei was suicidal, he would already have strapped on a bomb. He's not going to let the history of Iran end because he wants to poke Israel in the eye.

I guess I misunderstood your comment on the fallout. Sorry. You are right about the path of fallout from the destruction of a nuclear facility, I remember Chernobyl.

One thing that gets overlooked (especially with Father_Time's rants about right-wing nut job Christians praying for Armegeddon.......I admitted they do exist but they are in the fringe.

The Khomeini and his mullahs do that on a group/government scale. You said they would have already strapped on a bomb. I don't agree. They are more than prepared to "end the history of Iran", if it will get them their virgins and a place beside Mohammed. So their thinking clearly is definitely in play here. You may be right about poking Israel in the eye. However, they may just want to bring about the end of humanity if they can get away with it. I cannot judge their hearts. I can only judge their actions. And their actions are not reassuring me of anything but their path to conflict.

"Blowing up a facility with nuclear materials in it is terrorism, just as if terrorists managed to blow up a US nuclear power plant or chemical plant."

If a foreign military blew up a US nuclear power plant, it would not be terrorism. It would be an act of war. Yes, it would affect civilians, but that has never been the critiria for terrorism in the past. Terrorism is the targetting of civilians for the sake of targetting civilians. So if a military action causes civilian casualties, even a large number of them, that doesn't make it terrorism. Taking out a nuclear facilities, communication facilities, bridges, etc. are all military actions designed for stategic ends. They may involve, to varying degrees, the killing of civilians. And to the extent that they do it is tragic. But unless we're ready to redefine pretty much every war in history as acts of terrorism, those actions aren't terrorism.

"Just as Russia always knew it would cease to exist if it unleashed warheads on the West, Iran also knows its history is over if it attacks Israel or the US."

So you'd be OK with starting up another nuclear arms race, this time with the added spice of non-state actors (terrorists) that would try to get into the game? We will assure peace by ensuring that every nation (and non-state) has the power to destroy the entire world as we know it before they could be stopped. It could work (as you point out, the cold war didn't end in nuclear armageddon, thank heavens), but I think maintaining the status quo (which it seems to me is what the NNPT is intended to do) would be little less risky.

"So you'd be OK with starting up another nuclear arms race"

You and JD have both framed Iran's actions in OUR terms. Regardless of how nutty we think they are, developing nuclear energy is certainly their right, and developing nuclear arms, though no one wants them to, is a logical defensive position (again looking from their vantage point) in a world that keeps threatening them with "unprovoked" aggression. Remember, to date no one has launched, or even threatened as Russia did, nuclear weapons.

Do you guys think North Korea is less nutty? Why no talk of taking their facilities out?

You may have missed my comments on another thread, but we're never going to hold back the tide of nuclear arms through threats or bombs. Middle East experts say if we blew it all up today, Iran would rebuild within 2-3 years. That simply is not worth the considerable cost to US. We can't stop anyone from acquiring technology. The pace of science and technology has proven time and again that it will become easier with each passing year.

Our belief that we can threaten or bomb away the ability of any nation to acquire technology is about as rational as their belief in those 72 virgins waiting for them (besides which I really doubt many of them believe that any more than we believe the fantasy image of angels with harps in the clouds). Our comic book image of their religion is probably matched by their comic book image of ours.

Your links and numbers don't add up. This links has the numbers for the 108 Congress, same as your claims.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/R...

Party Breakdown
In the 108th Congress, the current party breakdown in the House is 227 Republicans,
210 Democrats (including five Delegates), and one Independent who is aligned with the
Democrats. The Senate has 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and one Independent who is
aligned with the Democrats.
...
Military Service14
There are 153 Members of the 108th Congress who have had some form of military
service, some 14 fewer than in the 107th Congress. The House has 117 veterans: 69
Republicans and 48 Democrats, including one woman, who is a Republican. In the
Senate, 35 Members are veterans: 19 Republicans and 16 Democrats.
...
14 Some information here is from the Military Officers Association of Americans Office
[http://www.moaa.org/Legislative/Handbook/FactSheets/LegisTips/legislative_tips_5.asp],
visited June 29, 2004.

<strike>19%</strike> 22.9% of all House Democrats ever served in the military.
<del>40%</del> 30.4% of all House Republicans ever served in the military.

"We don't have to 'nuke' Iran to release radioactivity. That's probably exactly why Iran doesn't tell us about a facility until it contains fuel. They are altogether too close to nuclear Israel. My point is that blowing up a facility with nuclear materials in it is terrorism, just as if terrorists managed to blow up a US nuclear power plant or chemical plant."

A military strike is not terrorism -- obviously. There is no question whatsoever about the obvious.

Striking a reactor and causing a release of activity is a similar problem to attacks on chemical or on biological weapons facilities -- there is a related risk of release of the agents in question. If we were to use nuclear weapons on these and other merited targets (hard or deeply buried targets of high value), there is a chance of release of radioactivity, as well. With nuclear reactors, the ideal is to be able to conduct a strike before the reactor has become active ("gone hot"). This addresses the risk of exposing the environment and civilians to radioactivity were the strike to be delayed. (In fact, this was one thing the evil Israelis did, with their great respect for life and humanity, that isn't shared by Israel's enemies, when the Isralis attacked the Iraqi reactor in 1981, the attack the chatterers and others, too, condemned at the time, but were relieved after Iraq invaded Kuwait several years later.)

That is why, in addition to the liability conferred by insane anti-nuclear and anti-Western politics on our use of nuclear weapons, that we have sought to develop non-nuclear highly-destructive weapons that can defeat nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, to destroy them while avoiding or minimizing any kind of associated release of the agents (if not completely destroyed).

"My point is that blowing up a facility with nuclear materials in it is terrorism, just as if terrorists managed to blow up a US nuclear power plant or chemical plant."

Not only is that obviously untrue in the case we're looking at, if our military (or Israel's) struck a reactor used to develop nuclear weapons (i.e., it is obviously a military target, no question about legitimacy).

That's even true with a vicious example you actually can truthfully consider, such as the threats by the Pakistanis not only to attack truly military targets, but other, civilian objects of interest merely to be vicious toward (as well as spiteful, if they expected to lose a war with) India: the Pakistanis at least once have threatened to use missiles or aircraft to strike Indian nuclear reactors, including civilian or research reactors (not military weapons production reactors, only), deliberately, to subject the surrounding and the downwind population to a deliberate release of some of the worst possible radioactive materials.

It actually isn't terrorism (as was actually true about the closest historical analogy that has happened before, Hussein's setting the Kuwaiti oil fields afire; "environmental terrorism" is specious -- it merely was something especially spiteful and vicious, and differs from attacks on Trombay or similar targets only to the extent that people rather than wealth would really be the objects of the attacks).

"But unless we're ready to redefine pretty much every war in history as acts of terrorism, those actions aren't terrorism."

Critics of military action in the USA could, and perhaps should, consider Sherman's antics in Georgia.

we are not at war with Iran. Neither is Israel. Any attack by us or Israel on Iran would be an act of war. The people of Iran, and the entire Muslim population of the world, would view it as "unprovoked" and indeed, outside of fiery rhetoric, it is unprovoked. See the discussion on "hate crimes" and remember "sticks and stones...."