CingularDuality

Ah, I understood your quoted comment to be completely different than what you're saying now. I thought you were saying that the US gov't justifications were scarier than the thought of Iran with nukes. You meant to say that actual war with Iran worries you more than Iran with nukes.

I still disagree with you, but you'll be happy to know that you're no longer insane. I do see plenty of insane people putting political position in a higher position of importance than common sense and basic precautions with regards to national security.

Look, Israel has never said that they want to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth. India and Pakistan haven't even said that about each other, they just quibble over their borders. Can't you see a difference between those countries and Iran or S. Korea?

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

leejo

Who is advocating war with Iran? Your judgment is clouded dude. No-one is advocating war with Iran, but some are not willing to take military operations off the table if that's what it takes to keep Iran from getting its hands on nukes. I'm in that camp.

What do you want? Stop personalizing everything - if Cheney is for it then you're against it. What is the desired end-state and how do you get there? We all agree that we don't want Iran to have nukes, right? Are you not prepared to fight for that?

AMosely

Who's advocating war with Iran? Apparently people in the White House are - I've already cited that twice in this thread and have even started threads on the subject based on past articles. This is what I am reacting to, because the sources are coming out of the VP's office.

Not everything is up to 'us' or 'we.' Iran may already have nukes - it certainly has long range missiles. You and others have already said the latest NIE could easily be wrong. As is the case with any nuclear-armed nation, simple possesion shouldn't matter as much as their motivation to use them - a cold war lesson already seemingly forgotten.

My desired end-state is peace among religions, peace among nations (the latter may not even be necessary after achieving the former) and universal respect for basic human value and rights. You get there by believing in that goal, not jumping to conclusions, and being as forthcoming as possible.

What's yours, dude?

__________________

leejo

What's mine? Champagne and caviar for everyone, except the people who disagree with me, whom I intend to mock and slander and pelt with stupid snarky questions, dude.

Switchcraft

I find this so telling. Do you really think international conflict is historically the fault of religion? I'm laughing both at how typically leftist the comment is, and its proximity to the phrase "universal respect."

AMosely

I'm more than happy to expand on the subject, because you are clearly confusing leftist (which I am often labeled as) with humanist (which I believe I am) - the two overlap in places but are far from synonymous.

Conflict is not singularly the fault of religion, no. But in many (if not most) cases throughout human history religion is either at the heart of a conflict or plays a major role in the origins of the conflict in the form of persecution and inequality, with race also playing a similar and sometimes indistinguishable role. Such patterns date back to pre-biblical times. The driving force behind Islamic terrorism today is not hatred of freedom, it's fear of persecution of the Muslim faith from within (such as Saudi Arabia) and without (America and Europe). These factors also works in reverse, with political and territorial changes having an effect on religious sentiment and conflict. Anti-semitism has existed for centuries, but the introduction of the state of Israel and the Zionist movement has spawned widespread anti-semitism among the Muslim population in the Middle East in the belief that the Zionist goal is to destroy Muslim civilization. This runs a close parallel with the belief that America shares this goal because they support Israel and have fought (and are fighting) wars against Muslims. It is partly out of this line of thought that I believe the question of military action against Iran should be heavily weighed.

It is a vicious cycle - American support for Israel is interpreted/propagandized as support for Zionism. American business dealings with Saudi royals are interpreted/propagandized as an attack against Islamic law and culture. Read the book 'The Looming Tower' by Lawrence Wright - the roots of Al Qaeda lie in Bin Laden's contempt for changes in Saudi culture and the American origins of those changes. This is where my belief in universal respect for human value and rights comes in - if such a thing can exist, conflicts born of misenterpretation and false fear could be prevented.

In a recent interview with Mohammad Ali Abtahi, the former vice president for parliamentary legal affairs under Iranian reformist President Mohammad Khatami, he states "at the moment, a negative point is that both in Iran and the United States, leaders in both countries don't see themselves as politicians; they also see themselves as carrying out the work of God. They've left the ground a bit, and that's very dangerous for the world." This is the type of logic and fundamental questions I am referring to when I talk about religion, politics and conflict. I believe the framers of the American constitution had this in mind when separating the affairs of the church from the affairs of the state. Religious states, whether Iran or Israel, are trouble. America's politics are perceived as religious by a large percentage of the world's population. If you disagree with that, then perhaps you can begin to call into question your views about the rest of the world and their views of America.

I am not a pacifist, but believe the use of force should be an absolute last resort and reactionary to every extent possible. Based on documented policy and actions, I believe the current Presidential administration's philosophy runs completely contrary to this, and therefore only serves to extend the destructive religious-political cycles mentioned above.

__________________

Switchcraft

I just think that's an awfully narrow lens through which to view the majority of international conflict. And your example of terrorism (leaving aside for the moment your idea that the driving force behind Islamic terrorism is "fear of persecution") completely sidesteps what I was talking about in the first place.

You indicated that you thought nations would no longer war with each other if religions were at peace with each other. To support that with an example of subnational or (non-national) actors like Osama bin laden is disingenuous. The largest conflicts in modern history have had nothing to do with religion at their core and little to do with religion even in their propaganda.

I'll agree that the current conflict with radical islam is very much a clash of civilizations, but the idea that nation-states have gone to war more often for religion than for things like water, wealth, or political power is, again, more an example of ideological arrogance than anything based in historical fact.

AMosely

Switch, I think you are reading between my lines a little too much. I never said religion is the sole cause of conflict in my first post, and in my second post I said it was a cause or a factor in many (if not most) armed conflicts. Of course resources, territory and power are key causes. While I cannot provide specific data, quantifying it at this point is obviously speculative and debatable. All I am saying is that many of the violent conflicts throughout history, and especially within the last 20 years, have involved racial/tribal or religious differences.

I do stand by my statement of religious persecution as the driving force behind terrorism done in the name of Islam. This is not opinion, it is documented fact. The most well-researched evidence of this that I have recently covered is Lawrence Wright's book 'The Looming Towers.' The fear of persecution may indeed be unfounded, but it exists none the less - Bin Laden believes (and has said so many times) that Israel, the U.S. and it's allies seek to destroy Islam, and unfortunately he and others are successfully selling this message to millions of disenfranchised Muslim youth. This is a major problem, and I feel one whose hand we should avoid playing into.

__________________

leejo

I don't think it's right or that it makes sense to claim that fear of religious persecution is the root cause of Islamic terrorism any more than it makes sense to claim that religious persecution is responsible for Christians who blow up abortion clinics. Both seek power for which they do not have sufficient popular support, and are willing to kill for it.

xTYBALTx

Mosely, I think that the Bush administration is playing hardball with Iran in order to intimidate them into "compliance." I'm not trying to justify the Bush admin's actions - I seek only to explain them: After US defeats in Vietnam and Somalia, and after the US stopped short of "going all the way to Baghdad" in Iraq I, there was a perception in some circles that the US was perceived throughout the world as a "Paper Tiger"; that the US didn't have the stomach for a "real fight" and therefore could be ignored and poked at will.

From day one, the Bush administration's foreign policy team has sought to change this supposed perception. You saw evidence of this in the US-China flap over the reconnaissance aircraft in 2001. After September 11, as we are all aware, the Bush administration became much more aggressive. I believe OBL even chided the US on at one point, saying that the US could easily be defeated if forced to fight up close and personal.

This history has important implications for the current situations vis-a-vis Iraq, Iran, and North Korea: The Bush administration feels that backing down in any way, even ever-so-slightly, would be a major defeat. Their entire foreign policy vision would be not only a failure, but the precise opposite of what was intended - the Bush team likely believes that the US would again be a paper tiger, in fact even more timid than before Bush II, if we give even one inch to any of these nations.

The entire concept of deterrence is quite complex and is probably at the heart of the Bush team's current foreign policy agenda.

__________________
Current Tybalt theme song: Mason v. Princess - Perfect

leejo

No man with a mullet avatar ever wrote truer words.

FatCobra

I second that

USN_Squid

"...the NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported. It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, not exactly a diplomatic pas de deux."

"One contrary opinion came from -- of all places -- an unnamed International Atomic Energy Agency official, quoted in the New York Times, saying that "we are more skeptical. We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran." When the IAEA is tougher than our analysts, you can bet the farm that someone is pursuing a policy agenda."


John Bolton and his mustache are always worth a read.

__________________

AMosely

Of course this factored in, however unfortunately. But do you seriously think this vindictive myth-busting is a good or even valid reason for going to war, killing and dying? As if there something wrong with a record of restraint when it comes to foreign policy? Did it ever occur to anyone that Bin Laden's chiding was intended to draw the US into armed conflict (which indeed it was, again read 'The Looming Tower.') The Bush administration's policies and decisionmaking processes have been childish at best, dangerously reckless at worst. Fred Thompson with Quayle as VP could have done better.

Again, this is what I am afraid of with Iran - rushing in to war to prove America's will with complete disregard for the obvious issues, alternatives and after effects.

__________________

xTYBALTx

Well certainties are pretty hard to come by in the realm of international diplomacy. Traditionally the best case scenario is to intimidate one's "enemies" and therefore avoid battle. But I think Bush was convinced, and probably rightly, that the US lacked any intimidatory credibility because of the past "defeats" discussed earlier.

Also, I agree 100% that Bin Laden sought to chide the US into war, but Bin Laden wanted us to invade and lose in Afghanistan - I think that even at his most optimistic OBL never would have expected the gift of an American invasion of an Arab nation (Afghanistan is not an Arab nation). With the benefit of hindsight, it probably would have been advantageous for the US to have focused on Afghanistan without fooling around in Iraq; a thorough and decently quick tromping of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan would have sent a strong message that the US will not be pushed around.

But then we're talking about Iraq and not Iran. I think it's clear that Bush committed himself to a showdown with Iraq, and when Hussein didn't back down it left Bush little choice. So now he's going to work on Iran - or has been for a while - with the intention of pushing hard from start to finish. Depending on how things shake out in Iraq, Bush may or may not end up achieving his goal of increasing American deterrent credibility, and that may or may not aide the US in its' confrontations with Iran and others.

The US will never invade Iran though (in the immediately foreseeable future), so don't worry about that. According to Luttwak, one night of air strikes are all that'd be needed. Of course, Iran might try some crazy stuff in the Persian Gulf / Straight of Hormuz in response, but even then we're talking about naval battles and ballistic missiles, not invasion and occupation.

__________________
Current Tybalt theme song: Mason v. Princess - Perfect