- comment
D.J. McGuire - body
- The issue at hand here, IMHO, should be the ends, more than the means. I would consider the military action to be just if and only if the goal is the liberation of the Iranian people. If the military action would knock out the nukes but leave the regime in place, I would not support it.
The problem we have with Iran is not the nuclear weapons they may or may not soon have; it is the tyrannical, terrorist-loving regime that imprisons the Iranian people. Nukes don't kill people; terrorists kill people. Period.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I'm with you on regime change, D.J. That's precisely what we want to have occur, and the event should be every bit as catastrophic to the mullahs as possible -- not a mere Monty Python "flesh wound".
- comment Mike
- body
- D.J. The Iranian people aren't really a people living in fear of their government. To say so is to completely misunderstand the culture over there.
My only question is whether or not they are a threat to the United States. I don't care if they are a threat to Israel or not. I really don't (buncha communists).
As far as the nuclear option, I think I am in agreement with everyone else ... it is too indiscriminate.
- comment Jason Kenney
- body
- I'm with DJ here, if there is no actual regime change then you are only treating the symptom, not the disease.
But the nuclear option... Well, that's a pandora's box we really don't need to open. We've got the technology and weapons available to us to go to war without having to use nuclear weapons.
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- Mike, did you see Christopher Hitchens' report from Tehran (in Vanity Fair, just before the "elections")? The comment I remember the most is where he says Iranians have to watch what they say lest they get their throats slit by Hezbollah shock troops.
That reads like fear to me.
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- I know, I know, not fair of me to make a reference without the link.
Mea culpa; here it is: http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/050627roco03?print=true
Here's the quote to which I refered: "Every now and then you can sit in on late-night discussions where young people wonder when the eruption will come. Perhaps the police or the Revolutionary Guards will make an irrevocable mistake and fire into a crowd? Perhaps, at a given hour, a million women will simply remove their hijabs and defy the authorities? (This discussion gets more intense every year as the summer approaches and women face the irritation and humiliation of wearing it in heat and dust.) But nobody wants to be the first to be blinded by acid, or to have their face lovingly slashed by some Hezbollah enthusiast. The student activists of the Tehran 'spring' of 1999, and of the elections which seemed to bring a reformist promise, have been picked off one by one, their papers closed and their leadership jailed and beaten."
Ok, it was face, not throat. My larger point still stands.
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- "My only question is whether or not they are a threat to the United States."
I'm really sorry, Mike; I don't mean to pick on you, but most of the experts of which I know agree that Iran is sheltering the lion's share of al Qaeda's remnants. That's threat enough for me.
- comment Dvt guy
- body
- Ehhhh - Iran's not that bad. It's not great, but it's not that bad. They're creeping in the right direction, at least.
As for Hitchens - he also wrote these rather amusing pieces:
Mommy Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
And of course, my favorite, Hitchens' obituary of Reagan, written days after he died:
Not Even a Hedgehog -
The stupidity of Ronald Reagan.
- comment Dvt guy
- body
- Oh and when I say, "Iran's not that bad" I mean that in the sense that their dictatorship isn't a human rights disaster that deserves immediate attention.
- comment Charles
- body
- I can't imagine you are in the minority on that view.
I also believe that Tactical Nukes are NOT on the table in any meaningful way.
I mean, we have them in our arsenal, so obviously we have plans that use them, but I don't believe any of those plans are actively being persued, and I believe the White House pretty much signalled that same thing this week in response to the Hersch column when they said that neither Hersch nor his source had any idea what they were talking about.
- comment Mike
- body
- I agree with Va Centrist. Iran doesn't have the greatest living conditions, but it certainly is no Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Communist Central American country.
I've known people from Iran, and they said that they fear America more than they fear their own government (because they didn't fear their own government). Is the guy currently in power a fanatical nut? Yes! Would our invading Iran be a "liberating force"? No. I just wanted to make that distinction very clear.
Besides, if you want to look at a government which uses brutal tactics in dealing with "insurgents", why not take a good look at Israel? Running over students with a bulldozer? Shooting children in schools? Don't hear much about Israel's attrocities, do we? That's because Israel is "our friend". The same is true with Saudi Arabia.
All this talk about "liberation" actually makes me sick because that ISN'T what our relations with Middle East dictators is all about.
As for whether Iran is a threat or not, I will say this. World War I was started because an archduke was assassinated and Serbia would not allow Austria-Hungary to conduct an investigation in their country. Austria-Hunagry claimed that Serbia was "harboring a terrorist" and invaded. Then all the alliances kicked in, and this HUGE war was fought where millions of people were killed, Nazism was born, and no one really won (except Germany LOST). Incidentally, Gavrilo Princip, Ferdinand's assassin was never caught and eventually died of tuberculosis in 1918 (after the war).
Today, we have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, under the pretext of terrorism (Afghanistan because we claimed that they were harboring a known terrorist), and are talking about invading Syria and Iran at some future point. As with Gavrilo Princip, Osama bin Laden seems to be all but forgotten, remains at large, and in fact may already be dead.
My big fear about our involvement over there is that history is about to repeat itself.
- comment Jason Kenney
- body
- Mike, have you been talking to Arab Iranians or Persian Iranians? Because I've personally found a difference in opinion between the two on the government of Iran.
- comment Mike
- body
- To be honest, Jason, I really don't know. This was a couple of years ago when I was at RMA. One thing I would like to say, though, is that it was the Iranian and Iraqi kids that were respectful during 9-11, and it was the Saudi kids who nearly got themselves either killed or expelled for cheering about the destruction of the Twin Towers.
13 Comments:
The problem we have with Iran is not the nuclear weapons they may or may not soon have; it is the tyrannical, terrorist-loving regime that imprisons the Iranian people. Nukes don't kill people; terrorists kill people. Period.
My only question is whether or not they are a threat to the United States. I don't care if they are a threat to Israel or not. I really don't (buncha communists).
As far as the nuclear option, I think I am in agreement with everyone else ... it is too indiscriminate.
But the nuclear option... Well, that's a pandora's box we really don't need to open. We've got the technology and weapons available to us to go to war without having to use nuclear weapons.
That reads like fear to me.
Mea culpa; here it is: http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/050627roco03?print=true
Here's the quote to which I refered: "Every now and then you can sit in on late-night discussions where young people wonder when the eruption will come. Perhaps the police or the Revolutionary Guards will make an irrevocable mistake and fire into a crowd? Perhaps, at a given hour, a million women will simply remove their hijabs and defy the authorities? (This discussion gets more intense every year as the summer approaches and women face the irritation and humiliation of wearing it in heat and dust.) But nobody wants to be the first to be blinded by acid, or to have their face lovingly slashed by some Hezbollah enthusiast. The student activists of the Tehran 'spring' of 1999, and of the elections which seemed to bring a reformist promise, have been picked off one by one, their papers closed and their leadership jailed and beaten."
Ok, it was face, not throat. My larger point still stands.
I'm really sorry, Mike; I don't mean to pick on you, but most of the experts of which I know agree that Iran is sheltering the lion's share of al Qaeda's remnants. That's threat enough for me.
As for Hitchens - he also wrote these rather amusing pieces:
Mommy Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
And of course, my favorite, Hitchens' obituary of Reagan, written days after he died:
Not Even a Hedgehog -
The stupidity of Ronald Reagan.
I also believe that Tactical Nukes are NOT on the table in any meaningful way.
I mean, we have them in our arsenal, so obviously we have plans that use them, but I don't believe any of those plans are actively being persued, and I believe the White House pretty much signalled that same thing this week in response to the Hersch column when they said that neither Hersch nor his source had any idea what they were talking about.
I've known people from Iran, and they said that they fear America more than they fear their own government (because they didn't fear their own government). Is the guy currently in power a fanatical nut? Yes! Would our invading Iran be a "liberating force"? No. I just wanted to make that distinction very clear.
Besides, if you want to look at a government which uses brutal tactics in dealing with "insurgents", why not take a good look at Israel? Running over students with a bulldozer? Shooting children in schools? Don't hear much about Israel's attrocities, do we? That's because Israel is "our friend". The same is true with Saudi Arabia.
All this talk about "liberation" actually makes me sick because that ISN'T what our relations with Middle East dictators is all about.
As for whether Iran is a threat or not, I will say this. World War I was started because an archduke was assassinated and Serbia would not allow Austria-Hungary to conduct an investigation in their country. Austria-Hunagry claimed that Serbia was "harboring a terrorist" and invaded. Then all the alliances kicked in, and this HUGE war was fought where millions of people were killed, Nazism was born, and no one really won (except Germany LOST). Incidentally, Gavrilo Princip, Ferdinand's assassin was never caught and eventually died of tuberculosis in 1918 (after the war).
Today, we have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, under the pretext of terrorism (Afghanistan because we claimed that they were harboring a known terrorist), and are talking about invading Syria and Iran at some future point. As with Gavrilo Princip, Osama bin Laden seems to be all but forgotten, remains at large, and in fact may already be dead.
My big fear about our involvement over there is that history is about to repeat itself.
Post a Comment
Home