 |
 |
 July 18, 2006
TALKING TO TEHRAN....Thomas P.M. Barnett writes about the wider conflict in the Middle East:
Barnett is almost certainly too optimistic about what we could accomplish with Iran — and far too cavalier about nuclear proliferation — but this still seems mostly correct to me. Iran has always been central to the region, it has genuine interests that can be leveraged, and that means it's not impossible to negotiate with them. It's hard — and getting harder — but not impossible. And without them, stability in both Iraq and the broader Middle East will probably be forever unattainable. It's time to talk. —Kevin Drum 10:12 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (113)Comments
The pigeons in question aren't going to wait around for that plan to unfold on Bush's watch, so they socialize their problem quite effectively through Hamas and Hezbollah. When I wrote last year in Esquire that Iran can basically veto our peace efforts in Beirut and Baghdad and Jerusalem, this is exactly what I had in mind. But no Islamic Republic of Iran means nobody can veto achieving peace in Beirut and Baghdad. No Islamic Republic of Iran means no one to prop up Assad's Syria. No Islamic Republic of Iran means no one to fund and arm Hamas and Hezbollah. Therefore the only solution possible is to militarily attack and destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran and liberate the Iranians so they set up their own free, democratic, and peaceful state which is not a threat to other countries. Wouldn't you agree with me? Posted by: Al on July 18, 2006 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINKWe are hardly "tied" down in Iraq much less than we are handcuffed by fighting the "politically correct war". We have approx. 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and we could easily double it. And we haven't even begun to use the full arsenal of our military weapons. If the allies (America, England and Israel) were to unleash the full arsenal combined with startegic diplomacy Hezbollah and the insurgency would not even stand a chance. Until then, we will never win over the moderate muslims because they still don't think we're serious. If we displayed supreme force the moderate Arab states (Pakistan, Afghanistan, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Kuwait) would begin to support us. We've tried diplomacy for over thirty years with miserable results. I mean if Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton couldn't resolve the issue, who could huh? The jihadists plan for years, and fight for decades, time is means nothing to a culture that old. Hezbollah was just buying time the last 10-15 years amassing their arsenal and saying what we wanted to hear. Diplomacy only leads to a lot of people dying slowly and under the radar, but they're still dying. Posted by: Jay on July 18, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINKNo. I don't agree. I think you foment war. Which you truly desire, as long as you and your progeny DO NOT FIGHT. You are weak, and sad, Mr. Al. //jim Posted by: Jim on July 18, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINKMan, this Al-bot thing is getting old and I wish our liberal friend would just cut it out. Conservabots don't need any parodying from us; they do it quite well on their own. Kevin, you should reference that earlier article which pointed out that Iran was ready and willing to talk to us a while ago and the Bush administration refused to engage them at that time. Now, we're in a much weaker position and our options and bargaining power are severely limited. One more casualty of this so-called "war on terror." Posted by: PaulB on July 18, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINKAl, you are such a jokester, right? Or did you have some group waiting in the wings to accomplish this task? Because you surely don't mean to send in the Rummy express to bring this about. Because you'd get better results with the military apparatus of Lichtenstein. Jay, delusional as ever, writes: "We are hardly 'tied' down in Iraq" Really, Jay? So we can just bring our troops home at any time? You should tell the Bush administration this. They seem to think otherwise. "much less than we are handcuffed by fighting the 'politically correct war'." Um, Jay, who said anything about "politically correct?" We're fighting about as incorrect a war in Iraq as it is possible to do, which is why we are now paying the price elsewhere in the region and the world. "We have approx. 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and we could easily double it." Well, no, actually Jay, we couldn't. Not without pretty destroying the effectiveness of our armed forces. Of course, if you want to double the size of our military by instituting a draft, by all means let's talk about it. "And we haven't even begun to use the full arsenal of our military weapons." Ah, so we should drop nukes on ... whom, exactly? "If the allies (America, England and Israel) were to unleash the full arsenal combined with startegic diplomacy Hezbollah and the insurgency would not even stand a chance." Oh my goodness. This would be fricking hilarious were it not so frighteningly delusional, and were not that delusion shared by all too many in the current administration. "Until then, we will never win over the moderate muslims because they still don't think we're serious." Ah, these games again. "The only thing these savages understand is force." Etc. Wash, rinse, repeat. "If we displayed supreme force" And I hadn't even gotten to this line when I wrote my response above. Q.E.D. The rest of the post was equally delusional. Amazing that someone could actually write such drivel, much less believe it. Posted by: PaulB on July 18, 2006 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINKPaulB, it takes an IQ of about 12 to debate by one line attacks on cherry picked sentences. Just ask Howard Dean. Your pathetic policy of containment and diplomacy with terrorists is the reason we're in this mess today asshat. You wouldn't know a solution if it bit you in the ass. You've become the confused brainwashed muslim pawn, UBL was dreaming of. Congratulations. Posted by: Jay on July 18, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINKTotally, off-topic, but according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, RW sleazoid Ralph Reed lost his LG primary bid in Georgia. (Sigh!) Where's Doug M./Charlie when you need him to ridicule. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on July 18, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINKI don't know what to do about Iran. If we hadn't overthrown Saddam, I still wouldn't know what to do about Iran. But, in that case, I also wouldn't know what to do about Saddam. Look, Iran is a tough problem -- maybe insoluble. But, it's not the case that we'd be able to deal with Iran if we only had 130,000 more troops available. For those who disagree, pretend you're in charge. What would you do about Iran with the extra troops? Please lay out your plan. Posted by: ex-liberal on July 18, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINKIran will interpret, rightly so in my opinion, any desire to talk to them directly as weakness. They are Hitler shifted to the 21st century with nuclear weapons, at least in the offing. We should be doing everything we can to destabilize them, including support for the democracy movement and radio free iran. Containment works with rational actors, like the USSR but not Iran. Posted by: Mike K on July 18, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINKmy, the posse is out in force tonight isn't it? no, jay, we can't double our force level in iraq; that's been the problem from the start. ex-liberal, i'm not sure i'd "do" anything about iran as such other than engage them in direct conversation, but it's a simple fact that saddam wasn't our problem, that we are tied down in iraq given our unwilingness to leave, and that we are therefore considerably weaked in terms of dealing with iran than we were in, say, february, 2003. mike k, it is completely childish and utterly without meaningful historic precedent to claim that iran would interpret our talking to them as "weakness." stop listening to right-wing blowhards and their fantsy struggle of wills. As for the notion that the USSR was some marvelous rational actor unlike iran, you're crazy. Posted by: howard on July 18, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINKUnsurprising but disturbing how silent the supposedly liberal blogosphere has been about Israel counterproductive and unjust reaction to the kidnapping of its soliders. As for Iran, Bush has helped it out enormously. He's created a monster. As for war against Iran, it's insane for a hundred reasons not least of which is that the moment a bomb falls on Iran our soliders in Iraq would face tens of thousands of Shiite insurgents. Posted by: david mizner on July 18, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINKAmerica: You are a bunch of damn fools. When you stand before the Lord on Judgement Day, do you want your hands to be dripping with the blood of thousands of innocent lives? Repent now. Posted by: The Liberal Avenger on July 18, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINKHoward, my point is, if our plan is to engage Iran in conversation (and that does appear to be our plan), then the troops in Iraq don't stand in the way. I don't believe an invasion of Iran was ever in Bush's plans. In Iraq, there was the justificatoin of 16 or 17 violated UN Security Council resolutions. There was Iraq's failure to fulfill the promises they made at the end of the 1991 war. Iran doesn't have comparable justifications. Posted by: ex-liberal on July 18, 2006 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINKex-liberal, we're not going to get diverted into a totally inane discussion about why we invaded Iraq. and yes, the troops in iraq stand in our way, in any number of fashions: from the fact that they are, as david pointed out in his good paragraph, hostages to iranian action to the fact that we have pissed away such good will as we had in the middle east. of course we can talk to iran no matter what, but we do so from a much more disadvantageous position than we were in in february, 2003. at that point, the limits of american power hadn't been revealed with quite the stark clarity that they have been shown now. PS. don't kid yourself: there is clearly a faction in the administration that is perfectly ready to go to war with iran, and the reasons will be nuclear weapons, or supporting hezbollah, or something else. this is an administration without a decent respect for the opinions of mankind: they do what they want. Posted by: howard on July 18, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINKYou've become the confused brainwashed muslim pawn, UBL was dreaming of Jay 10:44 PMGeorge W. Bush is the confused brainwashed muslim pawn UbL dreamed of. Why do you think that Bush abandoned the search for him and he released a tape just prior to the election? The facts are that the American military in so far as its ground operations are concerned, is overextended and its hardware is depleted. The Air Force is strong, but useless in Iran: They won't be able to get the nuclear facilities and the Iranians will resist like the British in WWII. Iran will interpret, rightly so in my opinion, any desire to talk to them directly as weakness. …Mike K 10:49 PMIn case you didn't know it, you don't negotiate with your friends but with your enemies. Iran has never attacked another country first, nor do they show any inclination to do so now. However, after Bush's dumbass "Axis of Evil" speech and the invasion of the weakest member of his imaginary Axis, the others realized that the best defense is a nuclear defense. There was Iraq's failure to fulfill the promises they made at the end of the 1991 war… ex-liberal 11:01 PMThat was no excuse to attack without a second UN resolution calling for military action. Saddam was fully cooperating, but Bush made the weapon's inspectors withdraw so he could have his war. The IAEA clearly showed there was no nuclear program in Iraq and nukes are the only real WMD. Bush has shown that he doesn't need reality-based justifications. It's good to be da king. Posted by: Mike on July 18, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK We are hardly "tied" down in Iraq much less than we are handcuffed by fighting the "politically correct war". We have approx. 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and we could easily double it. And just think, Jay, you could do something to help here rather than just blather on the web. Get thee to an enlistment center. On the hurry, boy. Chop! Chop! Posted by: snicker-snack on July 18, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINKThe Democratic party should be in secret contact with Iran, Syria and North Korea. They should make deals with them that will take effect on Jan 2009. If it doesn't make Reagan a traitor, it should be fine with Conservatives right? Posted by: enozinho on July 18, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINKDear little Jay, just as impotent as ever, writes: "PaulB, it takes an IQ of about 12 to debate by one line attacks on cherry picked sentences." Ah, so your inability to debate tells us something about your IQ, then? Alas, poor Jay.... Maybe with some time and some institutional care.... "Your pathetic policy of containment and diplomacy with terrorists is the reason we're in this mess today asshat. You wouldn't know a solution if it bit you in the ass." ROFL.... So since you cannot deal with the debunking of your silliness, you have to respond with impotent ad hominem attacks? Thanks, Jay; it just confirms what we already knew about you. "You've become the confused brainwashed muslim pawn, UBL was dreaming of. Congratulations." Coming from you, Jay, this is indeed a compliment. Thanks. This was some hilarious shit, though; much obliged for the laugh. Posted by: PaulB on July 18, 2006 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINKKevin, saying that "Barnett is almost certainly too optimistic about what we could accomplish with Iran — and far too cavalier about nuclear proliferation" basically undermines his entire argument, and yours. In his Esquire piece, Barnett said that we tell Iran that if they stop supporting the insurgency in Iraq, paid lip service to peace with Israel and stopped supporting terror they could have the bomb. What DOES Barnett smoke these days? This idea is absurd from beginning to end - if Iran was that kind of government, they wouldn't want or need the bomb; they want the bomb precisely so they can continue on their current course with even greater determination and less fear of being attacked. Even you agree Barnett is being far too optimistic about what negotiations with Iran could achieve, and far too indifferent to the consequences of a bomb in her hands. And the rest of us are supposed to take what he says seriously? There was a time when this approach might have made sense: before we were bogged down in Iraq, led there by an incompetent, reckless, and shallow man who has perhaps irretrievably alienated the planet. But now? I don't think so. As appalling as it is to contemplate - and I hate even thinking what I'm about to type - our only hope to regain the initiative may lie in letting the Israelis hammer Hezbollah. That may shift the initiative to those even in the Arab world who are increasingly worried about the Iranian tiger emerging in their midst, and who may be more willing to moderate some of the more extreme elements in that world. Couple that with pressure on the Israelis to remove settlements, and you may have a long-term strategy. But looking to Iran to help us is a fool's quest. Posted by: Sheldon on July 18, 2006 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINKMike K wrote: "Containment works with rational actors, like the USSR but not Iran." There are two problems with this: 1. The USSR was never regarded as a "rational actor" during the Cold War. It's only in hindsight that this has now become conventional wisdom. 2. What is your support for your assertion? What makes Iran irrational and incapable of being contained and/or negotiated with? Posted by: PaulB on July 18, 2006 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINKex-liberal wrote: "Iran doesn't have comparable justifications" 1. Support for terrorist organizations. 2. Attempt to gain nuclear weapons. Those are the only justifications Bush needed to go after Iraq. I'd say they were comparable, wouldn't you? Posted by: PaulB on July 18, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINKGeorge W. Bush is the confused brainwashed muslim pawn UbL dreamed of. Brainwashed indeed. A terrorism expert and White House insider, here's the money quote from former anti-terror czar Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies: Page 246: Attacked Iraq. Clarke argues that the war diverted resources from the hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and riled up potential al-Qaida recruits. "It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq.'Posted by: Windhorse on July 18, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK Jay writes: Carter negotiated the Camp David Accords, and Egypt is no longer an enemy of Israel. In '91, Bush 1 started the Madrid Conference, culminating in the signing by Jordan in '94 under Clinton. Diplomacy took out 2 of Israel's enemies. Imagine if Israel had to face a hostile Egypt and Jordan today.
We unleashed our full arsenal in Vietnam, against men with rifles wearing pajamas . Remember how that ended? Posted by: Andy on July 18, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK"It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq.'" I think they have a word for people who get duped like that - they're called suckers. Unfortunately in this case We The People are the ones who get shafted. Posted by: Irony Man on July 18, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINKWe unleashed our full arsenal in Vietnam, against men with rifles wearing pajamas . Remember how that ended? You don't get it, Andy. The chickenhawks won't be happy unless they see some nation-scale genocide. It's all a video-game to them. Posted by: Irony Man on July 18, 2006 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINKUgh. I gotta say, the tone of Barnett's rhetoric just really turns me off. Comparing America's focus on WMDs with the Christian right's focus on abortions? It's as retarded morally as it is disgusting metaphorically. And then the (perhaps not so) unintentional repetition of the old jihadi propaganda that Israel actually dictates America's foreign policy. Maybe he's got a point about negotiating with Iran, but the loathing he feels for this country is pretty much unconcealed by the writing. Not a great place to begin a conversation. Posted by: Jonathan Dworkin on July 18, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINKKevin posted: "It's time to talk." And just WHO are the Iranians supposed to talk TO ? We have a moron in the Oval Office, an incompetent fool as Secretary of State, and a delusional war monger as VP. We unleashed our full arsenal in Vietnam, against men with rifles wearing pajamas. Not to mention children and women with grenades, North Vietnamese well-armed regulars, and a few political limitations. Don't you watch all those Viet Nam war movies?? Posted by: pencarrow on July 19, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK"Iran has always been central to the region, it has genuine interests that can be leveraged, and that means it's not impossible to negotiate with them. It's hard — and getting harder — but not impossible. And without them, stability in both Iraq and the broader Middle East will probably be forever unattainable." Iran is one of the world's major oil producers, and with the price per barrel drifting to $75, the amount of money pouring into Iran is phenomenal. It is true that stability in the ME is impossible with Iran: Iran, thanks to GWB, is starting to call the shots in the ME now. It is so sad to see the right-wing tough-talking an invasion of Iraq. Talk about being in denial. 2. What is your support for your assertion? What makes Iran irrational and incapable of being contained and/or negotiated with? Exactly Paul. While we may disagree with the aims of the current Irani regime, I've seen absolutely no evidence to indicate they are irrational, just outside Mike K.'s cultural purview perhaps and so giving rise to his prejudices against those that ain't like us. From my perspective it is your governent that falls further into the irrationality camp. Demographics are against the Mullahs. They will fall from internal pressure. The only question is when. But current US policy seems to be designed to strengthen their reign. Even opponents of the mullahs (the vast majority of younger Iranians) who miight look kindly on US jaw-jaw directed against the mullahs don't approve of it directed against their nation. And remember tens of thousands of opponents of the regime nevertheless died fighting to protect their country from Iraqi aggression. While we may disagree with the aims of the current Irani regime, I've seen absolutely no evidence to indicate they are irrational... I guess it depends on what you consider "the regime" and your definition of "irrational", but Iran's President seems a bit irrational when his speeches include such concepts as the Holocaust never occurred, or that Isreal needs to be wiped off the map. Posted by: pencarrow on July 19, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK...and a few political limitations... What, you mean you can't deal with them through airstrikes? Who knew? You still lost though, didn't you. Posted by: floopmeister on July 19, 2006 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK"Talking" to Iran just gives them more time to advance their nuclear ambitions, re-inforces the legitimacy of their leader, and delays the inevitable. But it makes you feel good, right Kevin? Posted by: Down goes Frazier on July 19, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINKSo, Kevin, your position is also that Bush cannot participate in any peace process in the Levant because Iran has them checkmated somehow? What a load of crap. Remember those days when you flirted with the idea that the Iraq war would be a good thing? You are at that time again with Iran and Lebanon, Kevin. Why dont you take a deep breath before you give weight to this Iran invasion/bombing hockum as a good idea? With people like you in your simpleminded believer alter-ego on one side and the Israel-right-and-never-wrong fanatics on the other side, the PNAC Middle East plan is getting very near full flowering. Posted by: ChetBob on July 19, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINKSince the Texas macho of this administration has dictated that it doesn't "negotiate" with countries such as Iran, it's very difficult to see how the Bush administration can parlay with Iran without it feeling a significant loss of face. To me, that means the situation continues to fester and worsen until Feb. '09, when we may be lucky enough to get an "adult" (i.e., willing to let its dick down long enough to discuss serious problems with other nations) administration elected. I just hope the situation isn't beyond repair by then. Posted by: Taobhan on July 19, 2006 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINKPencarrow - since the Iranian president has a lot less power over direct military action than the US President does, the fact that he talks crazy while Iran acts cagy is fine. What worries me is that my country's (US) admin is talking belligerent and acting willfully stupid. Posted by: Butch on July 19, 2006 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINKYour pathetic policy of containment and diplomacy with terrorists is the reason we're in this mess today asshat. Fuck you Jay. You have no idea what you're talking about. We're in the mess we're in today because of political meddling in the middle east, and coddling of dictators for oil and "free enterprise zones". Terrorism thrives in an environment where the one or two freak-ass radical religious nuts can gain large-scale followings among people with large-scale suffering and powerlessness. Give people an alternative - like a hope of accomplishing a middle-class lifestyle by their own hand: And I guarantee, they will be too fat and happy. . . too busy towing their boat to the lake for the weekend, to get angry about where their next clip of 7.62mm ammo for their AK-47 is going to come from. You can paint as many Iraqi fingers purple as you like. But the violence will not stop until you EMPOWER these people with tools other than RPG's, AK-47's, knives, quarans, and suicide belts. The Liberal solution is not "containment and appeasement". The Liberal solution is "Power to the People" (not the fucking mullahs, you idiot). Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on July 19, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK"Down goes Frazier" wrote: "Talking" to Iran just gives them more time to advance their nuclear ambitions, re-inforces the legitimacy of their leader, and delays the inevitable." And not talking with Iran ... just gives them more time to advance their nuclear ambitions, says nothing at all about the "legitimacy" of their leader (since that is not even remotely in question), and ... delays the inevitable. Um ... did you have a point to make? ChetBob wrote: "So, Kevin, your position is also that Bush cannot participate in any peace process in the Levant because Iran has them checkmated somehow?" You might want to learn to read, since that in no way describes Kevin's position. Or anyone else's position, for that matter. Sheesh.... did you even bother to think before you posted? Posted by: PaulB on July 19, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINKpencarrow wrote: "I guess it depends on what you consider 'the regime' and your definition of 'irrational', but Iran's President seems a bit irrational when his speeches include such concepts as the Holocaust never occurred, or that Isreal needs to be wiped off the map." And how does that differ from the rhetoric of various Soviet leaders during the Cold War? Posted by: PaulB on July 19, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINKIran is one of the world's major oil producers, and with the price per barrel drifting to $75, the amount of money pouring into Iran is phenomenal. You know there's got to be money passing under the table in all this somewhere. Too bad the SWIFT program doesn't make its results public. Carlyle group; Halliburton; Enron; Dubai Ports, Bin Laden Group, etc. . . . Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on July 19, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINKIrony Man wrote: "The chickenhawks won't be happy unless they see some nation-scale genocide. It's all a video-game to them." Some of them really do seem to believe that "all it takes is will" or that "all these [fill-in-the-blanks] understand is force." The latter is what "shock and awe" was supposed to be all about. That really worked, didn't it? The former assertion, by the way, is a built-in hedge against failure. If we fail, it's not because our policy was flawed or our execution was flawed. No, it's because we lacked the will, political or otherwise. Lather, rinse, repeat. We've been here before and, sadly, we will be here again. Posted by: PaulB on July 19, 2006 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINKThe latter is what "shock and awe" was supposed to be all about. That really worked, didn't it? It worked well for them on 9/11. Behold the evidence. Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on July 19, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINKDiplomacy only leads to a lot of people dying slowly and under the radar, but they're still dying. He is so right. We should bomb them so they die swiftly with everyone watching and the neocons enjoying the sight. Posted by: nut on July 19, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINKThe former assertion, by the way, is a built-in hedge against failure. If we fail, it's not because our policy was flawed or our execution was flawed. No, it's because we lacked the will, political or otherwise. Lather, rinse, repeat. We've been here before and, sadly, we will be here again. Pencarrow's already brought this up on this thread: The US lost vietnam because of ...a few political limitations... It's the old 'stabbed in the back' mythology from the Weimar Republic again. It's the mythology of failure. Posted by: floopmeister on July 19, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINKUgh. I gotta say, the tone of Barnett's rhetoric just really turns me off. Comparing America's focus on WMDs with the Christian right's focus on abortions? It's as retarded morally as it is disgusting metaphorically. I think the point was that america ties its foreign aid to reproductive health, and doesn't provide aid to countries that don't explicitly endosrse its myopic views on women's health. similarly, being overly focused on wmd-proliferation limits our interaction with threatening nation states to one of an arms watchdog ... and we never get to any actual dialog from which both sides can benefit.
israel DOES dictate american foreign policy ... where have you been??? we arm them, overlook their war crimes, and fight their wars for them. we've been doing it for 30 years ... did you just now notice? Posted by: Nads on July 19, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINKUgh. I gotta say, the tone of Barnett's rhetoric just really turns me off. Comparing America's focus on WMDs with the Christian right's focus on abortions? It's as retarded morally as it is disgusting metaphorically. It's a brilliant comparison. The point is not the Christian right's focus on abortions; the point is the focus on abortions WITHIN OUR FOREIGN AID AGENDA. US foreign aid is insanely distorted by an anti-sex agenda cooked up to placate congresspeople and political organizations of the (Christian) right. For example: we can't fund UNFPA, which provides operations for women with fistula around the world and generally does tons of much-needed work, because it allegedly doesn't go all out to oppose abortions in China. Insane. We devote 30% of our PEPFAR worldwide anti-AIDS money to "promoting abstinence", i.e. we give it to obsessive Christians or cynical non-Christians who buy 4-wheel-drive vehicles for themselves and flush the rest of the money down the toilet. Insane. (Here in Vietnam, one anti-AIDS NGO took that 30% and spent it on a national TV ad in which a bunch of guys in a bar look at a sexy woman and tell each other to just, er, think about baseball or something. It was totally bizarre. Basically they figured that was the fastest way to spend that 30% of the money that had to get spent in order for them to do the rest of their programs.) This anti-sex and anti-abortion obsession is dictated entirely by the fear of congresspeople and of USAID that they will wind up on a mailing list from Focus On the Family for "funding forced abortions from the Communist/Islamic/pagan gubbernmint of Kazookistan!" And when foreign governments realize that our aid agenda is preposterously distorted in this fashion, it makes it hard for them to take any of the other things we're telling them seriously. This is very, very similar to the dynamic with WMDs, and terrorism more generally, in distorting our relationships with countries on a host of diplomatic fronts. Posted by: brooksfoe on July 19, 2006 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINKWow! I did a search on this thread for "PALESTIN" and didn't come up with a one. On the last thread "EUROPE AND LEBANON" it came up late and was rather distanced from the central argument. All you don't think this is part of the Hizbullah equation? But isn't that the case: it is right at the center. Yes, the Arabs see themselves as separate nations ( the caliphate isn't around the corner as the R'bots subscribe), but the culture -- as in Europe and/or N. America -- flows wider. Why do we try to symplify beyond the reality. (e.g. why did US Irish support murderous terrorism in Ireland). So, just as in the thread previously mentioned, the discussion, to be effective, has to flow over the whole problem, all those involved, every aspect of the conundrum. That is what the diplomats (I hope) are facing. To do less is to be a GWB on world problems: ignorant, simple, unapplied, unsubtle, ineffective, and, in short, a failure. Some of the subjects you bring up require more than 2 lines. Sorry. I was going od fast, didn't mean to include Iran in the Arab world. But within the Islamic world we haven't helped ourselves one bit since 11th September. brroksfoe covers most of it, but it goes wider and so mush deeper then "...it makes it hard for them to take any of the other things we're telling them seriously...." God obviously isn't helping to defend us from ignorance. Guess we'll have to do it ourselves. It's one thing for the cretins that live in the k street/think tank/administration bubble to keep clinging to the ridiculous fallacies that regime change/destruction of hamas/ american empire are attainable. But it's so deeply depressing to see so many average joe american's lapping up this garbage. If, as Gingrich says, we are beginning world war 3, you gus had better prepare yourselves: most of the world is going to line up against the U.S. Posted by: george 3rd on July 19, 2006 at 4:30 AM | PERMALINKIf, as Gingrich says, we are beginning world war 3, you gus had better prepare yourselves: most of the world is going to line up against the U.S. wrote george 3rd. A number of Arab countries have given guarded responses indicating approval of Israel's attack on Hezbollah and Hamas. This US-backed attack against Arabs has more support from other Arabs than from elements of the American left. Posted by: ex-liberal on July 19, 2006 at 4:41 AM | PERMALINK"A number of Arab countries have given guarded responses indicating approval of Israel's attack ..." Jay's post at 10:29 p.m. last evening reflects the right-wing's moral confusion and hypocrisy perfectly. He bemoans the use of diplomacy because he believes it leads to "slow death" (evidence please), then advocates using the full arsenal of America's weaponry, presumably to commit genocide against Muslims, innocent or otherwise. This inhuman view of the conflict in the Middle East is echoed in our idiotic president's statements that attempt to conflate "Israel protecting itself" with attacks on civilian targets like these, that essentially constitute war crimes. These people are sick and deviant. aaron: Iran wants to talk with us about non-aggression treaties, the Kurdish situation in Iraq (autonomy or independence?), various concerns in Afghanistan, and so forth. We say: no dice, we're not even talking to you until you give up your nuke program. So Iran tells Hezbollah: if you go ahead and kidnap some Israeli soldiers and then rocket the bejeezus out of Haifa, we wouldn't say no. Presto, a miniwar. And now the US is going to either have to go and talk to Iran about non-aggression treaties, the Kurdish situation, Afghanistan...etc., or beg Kofi Annan to do it for us. And the difference is, now just going to talk to them looks like a humiliating defeat for us. That clear enough for ya? Posted by: brooksfoe on July 19, 2006 at 7:00 AM | PERMALINKIs it just me or is the shtick coming from the Als getting old and tired? He/they make the comment section less entertaining and somewhat tiresome to read. Posted by: et on July 19, 2006 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINKOK, so this is not going to make all you armchair analysts and conspiracy theorists very happy, but how's this for a somewhat more perspective? I don't know what to do about Iran. If we hadn't overthrown Saddam, I still wouldn't know what to do about Iran. But, in that case, I also wouldn't know what to do about Saddam. "ex-liberal" displays, once again, shocking dishonesty, ignorance and stupidity. "What to do" about Saddam was perfectly obvious -- containment and deterrence, a policy that successfully rendered Saddam impotent as a so-called "threat" for a decade, just as it successfully prevented Soviet agression against the US during the Cold War. Moreover, "ex-liberal" would like to imply that Bush's folly in Iraq results in a better, not worse, security situation for the US. This is an assertion that is not at all in evidence and, indeed, runs contrary to all available data. Posted by: Gregory on July 19, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINKI see ex-liberal, Mike K, and Jay are back in full force with their lies, delusions, and strawmen. ex-liberal lie: This US-backed attack against Arabs has more support from other Arabs than from elements of the American left. Mike K: Iran will interpret, rightly so in my opinion, any desire to talk to them directly as weakness. They wouldn't need that, even if it were true; Bush exudes weakness with every statement and every action. Posted by: Advocate for God on July 19, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINKThe latter is what "shock and awe" was supposed to be all about. That really worked, didn't it? PaulB, there was an interesting discussion in another thread in which a certain Bush defender was unable to provide an adequate distinction between is definition of a terrorist attack -- one intended to create terror and fear in the civilian populace -- and "shock and awe." Posted by: Gregory on July 19, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINKA number of Arab countries have given guarded responses indicating approval of Israel's attack on Hezbollah and Hamas. Cite, please. Posted by: Gregory on July 19, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINKHere's one cite, Gregory: An emergency Cairo meeting of the 18 Arab League nations' foreign ministers last weekend produced the most significant event in the region since Saddam Hussein fell from power. These meetings are routine, held in crises or for political posturing and on every occasion before last weekend have resulted in condemnation of Israel and the United States. This meeting began with the Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh proposing a resolution condemning Israel's military action and supporting Lebanon's "right to resist occupation by all legitimate means" (which even the Associated Press report characterized as "language frequently used by Hezbollah to justify its guerillas' presence in south Lebanon"). The Lebanese draft also called on Israel to release all Lebanese prisoners and supported Lebanon's right to "liberate them by all legitimate means." The "Lebanese prisoners" are virtually all Hezbollah members and "legitimate means" translates to terrorism. The Syrian foreign minister, Walid Moallem, strongly supported Lebanon and Hezbollah. But a historic obstacle was raised that blocked the Lebanese endorsement of terrorism. The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, led a triumvirate including Egypt and Jordan that, according to the AP report, was "criticizing the guerilla group's actions, calling them 'unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.' " Prince Faisal said, "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we simply cannot accept them." These are the rumblings that precede a political earthquake. The Arab leaders are afraid that the acts of the terrorists they have coddled for decades might have consequences for them. And they are very frightened of what Iran may do next. We must reinforce those fears because they provide the first big lever with which those nations can be moved. Howard, my point is, if our plan is to engage Iran in conversation (and that does appear to be our plan), then the troops in Iraq don't stand in the way. That depends on the kind of conversation. If its just a ritualistic exchange of empty words with no substance and no intent to produce results, sure, the troops in Iraq don't stand in the way. If its a diplomatic campaign to get Iran to do what we want without the need to resort to actual force, the fact that those troops current mission—and the diplomatic course leading up to them being there—undermine our ability to be trusted and our capacity to project a credible marginal threat around Iranian noncompliance does stand in the way of successful "conversation". A number of Arab countries have given guarded responses indicating approval of Israel's attack on Hezbollah and Hamas. Criticizing Hezbollah is not the same thing as approving military attacks on them by Israel. Posted by: Windhorse on July 19, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINKex-liberal: That quote you provided was not an example of any Arab country " indicating approval of Israel's attack on Hezbollah and Hamas." At best (for your case), it was an example of Arab countries recognizing that it was a matter of established fact that is dangerous to Arab interest that Israel will act in the way it is in response to actions like those of Hamas and Hezbollah, and that consequently groups like Hamas and Hezbolla who provide the pretext for such actions are acting contrary to broader Arab interests. It is no more approval than warning someone that if they bare their neck around a vicious dog, the dog will bite them is "approval" of the dog's actions when it attacks. "The Arab leaders are afraid that the acts of the terrorists they have coddled for decades might have consequences for them" Nice link ex-liberal. Read my post 10:29pm July 18. Specifically PaulB who has all the answers but no solutions. That is of course if he can stop with his self worship. Posted by: Jay on July 19, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINKex-liberal: Here's one cite, Gregory And it proves you to be a liar. Criticizing the attacks of Hezbollah and Hamas is not equivalent to indicating approval of Israel's attacks. So, you lied twice, apparently. Once about a number of Arab countries approving Israel's attacks and once about the quote being support for your statement. Posted by: Advocate for God on July 19, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINKJay: That is of course if he can stop with his self worship. That would be you who is the self-worshiper, Jay, not PaulB.. Specifically PaulB who has all the answers but no solutions. And this is a description of Bush, not PaulB. Nice link ex-liberal. Only for deluded liars like you, Jay. Posted by: Advocate for God on July 19, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK"The Arab leaders are afraid that the acts of the terrorists they have coddled for decades might have consequences for them" Too bad conservatives have never learned that the acts of the terrorists and vicious dictators they coddled for decades, including the Saudi monarchy, might have consquences for American soldiers and the American public, in both blood and money. Posted by: Advocate for God on July 19, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINKYour pathetic policy of containment and diplomacy with terrorists is the reason we're in this mess today asshat. You wouldn't know a solution if it bit you in the ass. God I hate it when Jay goes off his meds. So your "solution" would be the final solution eh? The tired old "nuke em all" stance. Or how bout "bomb em back to the Stone Age"? Kinda like Israel's doing now in Lebanon - you know killing civilians, destroying infrastructure, perpetuating the failed state in Lebanon - oh, and maybe nailing a handful of actual Hezbollah fighters. It doesn't work. Yes, Jay. That was a good post of yours. It's nice to avoid unnecessary war, but some wars must be fought. Posted by: ex-liberal on July 19, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINKToo bad conservatives have never learned that the acts of the terrorists and vicious dictators they coddled for decades, including the Saudi monarchy, might have consquences for American soldiers and the American public, in both blood and money. Gee, advocate for God, I think W has learned this lesson very well. Eisenhower overthrew unfriendly democracies and installed friendly dictators. Bush overthrows unfriendly dictators and installs democracy (or, at least, he tries to). Posted by: ex-liberal on July 19, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINKGee, advocate for God, I think W has learned this lesson very well. Really? Than why is he still coddling the same kinds of dictators (the Saudi monarchy, Pakistan, etc.)? ex-liberal: Bush overthrows unfriendly dictators and installs democracy . . . You mean like North Korea? Or perhaps Iran? Or the Sudan? Maybe China? How about Russia? Ummmmmm, Cuba? Libya, then? And, as cmdicely alludes to, didn't Bush ship a bunch of weapons to a Pakistani dictator who rules a country full of Islamic radicals, much as his father helped to arm Saddam, who also ruled a country full of Islamic radicals? The latter worked out so well, eh, ex-liberal and current idiot. Go easy on poor Jay. The sad truth is, he's just a little kid. With the mentality of a sociopathic serial killer, to be sure, but a little kid nonetheless. Posted by: The Sad Truth on July 19, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK"ex-liberal": You have got to be kidding. As was pointed out to you, your citation supports your claim not at all. It merely begs the question: Are you willfully ignorant or deliberately dishonest? It's nice to avoid unnecessary war, but some wars must be fought. You forgot the crucial concervative codicil: By other people. Posted by: Gregory on July 19, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINKIt would be in Americans' best interests to be friendly with Iran. It would be in Iranians' best interests to be friendly with the US. It would be in the Iraqis' best interests if the US and Iran were friendly to each other. It would be in the Arabs' best interests if the US and Iran were friendly to each other. It would be in the Europeans' best interests if the US and Iran were friendly to each other. Perhaps there is one country that does not think it would be in their best interests for the US and Iran to be friendly to each other. Posted by: Hostile on July 19, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINKReally? Than why is he still coddling the same kinds of dictators (the Saudi monarchy, Pakistan, etc.)? cmdicely, what is this rhetorical question supposed to mean? Are you actually faulting Bush for not having mounted a military overthrow of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Similar question for Advocate for God: Do you really believe the world would be a better place if Bush had used military means to overhrow Russia, China, Cuba, Sudan, etc.? Yes, Bush has coddled friendly dictators, just as past Presidents have. That's the reality of foreign affairs. Jimmy Carter didn't follow this rule with the Shah of Iran, and the world got something worse. However, along the lines of JFK and Woodrow Wilson, Bush has sought to spread democracy. Many liberals criticize past Presidents who imposed dictatorhips -- properly so, in my opinion. Those people ought to give Bush credit for not following that convenient practice, but instead doing the difficult, risky effort of democracy-building. And, note that the movement towards democracy in some middle eastern countries puts pressure on nearby dictatorships. The people in those countries know what's going on around them. That's one reason why Syria and Iran want to torpedo Iraqi democracy. Posted by: ex-liberal on July 19, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINKThose people ought to give Bush credit for not following that convenient practice, but instead doing the difficult, risky effort of democracy-building. There's little effort that Bush is, in fact, "not following ... convenient practice, but instead doing the difficult, risky effort of democracy-building." Indeed, the spiraling civil war in Iraq is a direct result of Bush failing to do "the difficult, risky effort of democracy-building." note that the movement towards democracy in some middle eastern countries puts pressure on nearby dictatorships Another assertion not in evidence. That's one reason why Syria and Iran want to torpedo Iraqi democracy. What Iraqi democracy? Bush and Company have cited "democracy-building" as a last, desperate justification for their bogus rationale for inviading Iraq. For starters, "ex-liberal," you're foolish for taking Bush's claims at face value, as has been demonstrated time and again. But Bush deserves no credit for claiming to promote democracy without evidence that he's actually doing so. Thus, the myriad citations where he is not, in fact, promoting democracy are indeed relevant, as is the obvious examples of his two conspicuous failures -- Iraq and Afghanistan (where the regime Bush enabled enjoys no more control or legitimacy than the one the Soviets installed -- how's that for an embarrassing failure? Posted by: Gregory on July 19, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINKAre you actually faulting Bush for not having mounted a military overthrow of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? You know, there is a whole big middle ground between advancing a state into status as a "major Non-NATO ally" and mounting a military overthrow. Posted by: cmdicely on July 19, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINKA number of Arab countries have given guarded responses indicating approval of Israel's attack on Hezbollah and Hamas. Ten seconds on google netted the following refutation of this claim: Saudi Foreign Minster Prince Saud Al-Faisal, stressed that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has pursued with great concern and strongly denounced Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Palestinian territories in which Israel waged an all-out war aiming at premeditated destruction of infrastructure; violation of human and national rights; and targeting and punishing of the civilian and innocent people by assassination and apprehension without consideration for international pacts, conventions and human norms. In addition to Saudi Arabia, Egypt called for a ceasefire, Jordan and Syria denounced the attacks, Lebanon of course did both, and further and more importantly: sentiment by the Arab populations is very strongly supportive of Hezbollah's actions. Posted by: Windhorse on July 19, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINKex-liberal wrote: However, along the lines of JFK and Woodrow Wilson, Bush has sought to spread democracy. Bush has done nothing of the kind. The Bush administration's original plan for Iraq was to install Chalabi as a US puppet dictator -- the "new, improved Saddam". When that failed miserably, the Bush administration fought every effort towards self-determination by the Iraqi people, only giving in to the popular demand for elections when forced to do so. And Bush has continued to try to coopt and subvert Iraqi democracy at every step, all the while claiming credit for it! What a hypocritical fraud. Bush's idea of "spreading democracy" is to call US-friendly dictatorships "democracies" and call US-unfriendly popular governments "dictatorships". You are also wrong about Jimmy Carter not "coddling" the Shah. The demand of the Iranian revolutionaries was for the Shah -- a brutal and bloody dictator who was put into power by the US after the CIA overthrew the democratically elected secular government of Iran in the 1950s -- to be returned to Iran to stand trial for his crimes. Carter harbored the Shah in the US and refused to return him. That's why the Iranians took US hostages in the first place, to force the US to meet their demand that the Shah be returned to face justice. Carter should have acknowledged that the US was wrong to install and support the Shah's dictatorship, and sent the Shah back to Iran. If he had, then the entire history of the region for the last 25 years might have been entirely different. Posted by: SecularAnimist on July 19, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINKAnd how could I have forgotten Iraq's view on the matter: In Iraq, political leaders from a wide range of factions expressed unbridled support for the Palestinians and Lebanese, including Hezbollah. Thank goodness for those Midde Eastern democracies Bush is so good at creating. Posted by: Windhorse on July 19, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINKComment by Hostile above: 'Perhaps there is one country that does not think it would be in their best interests for the US and Iran to be friendly to each other.' Gee, Hostile, who might that country be?!?! Posted by: Paul in KY on July 19, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINKex-liberal: Do you really believe the world would be a better place if Bush had used military means to overhrow Russia, China, Cuba, Sudan, etc.? The question is, don't you? You keep saying its a better place now that Saddam is gone. Why wouldn't it be a better place if the leaders of those countries were gone as well, countries far more dangerous to the US and world peace than Saddam ever was? BTW, Bush is actively assisting Pakistan with military equipment - that's not just refusing to depose Musharref. And given your lies about Arab support for Israeli attacks, you are hardly a credible souce of foreign policy critique.
PaulB: I WAS WRONG. I did fail to carefully read the meaning of the text quoted by Kevin and Kevin's point in putting it there. And, no, it does not appear that I bothered to think before I posted. On the otherhand.... Posted by: ChetBob on July 19, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINKAnd, note that the movement towards democracy in some middle eastern countries puts pressure on nearby dictatorships. The people in those countries know what's going on around them. That's one reason why Syria and Iran want to torpedo Iraqi democracy. Just a fact check: Iran is not a dictatorship. After Isrand and Turkey, it's probably the most democratic country in the region. Posted by: Stefan on July 19, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKckelly: The tired old "nuke em all" stance. It's only tired because we've waited and equivicated for too goddam long. Better late than never though. Now that we've got neutron bombs we can just nuke the entire Old World - Europe, Asia and Africa. Those Aussies ain't too bad (or at least not worth wasting bombs on) so we can keep 'em. Canada and Latin America can stay (except for Cuba of course). Hell, I love a good burrito. The rest of 'em gotta go before they cause any more trouble. Problem is that Kennedy guy didn't have the balls for it. Wallace would've done it right, and I've got a good feeling about Dick (oh, and W). Posted by: Curtiss LeMay on July 19, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINKJust a fact check: Iran is not a dictatorship. After Isrand and Turkey, it's probably the most democratic country in the region. I'd say that Iran is more dictatorship than not, even though its may be the third most democratic regime in the Middle East; the competition is pretty weak.
Many liberals criticize past Presidents who imposed dictatorhips -- properly so, in my opinion. Those people ought to give Bush credit for not following that convenient practice, but instead doing the difficult, risky effort of democracy-building. How exactly is Bush not following this convenient practice? He's coddling the dictators and/or virtual dictators of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan (whose President for Life Islam Karimov boils to death his political opponents), Russia, China, Burma, etc. Posted by: Stefan on July 19, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINKPaulB, there was an interesting discussion in another thread in which a certain Bush defender was unable to provide an adequate distinction between is definition of a terrorist attack -- one intended to create terror and fear in the civilian populace -- and "shock and awe." Yes, that was between me and Red State Mike. I think in the end his claim came down to "if they do it with a carbomb, it's terrorism; if we do it with a missile, it's not." Posted by: Stefan on July 19, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINKStefan - Note he difference between "coddling" an existing dictatorship and "imposing" a new dictatorship. Posted by: ex-liberal on July 19, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINKCarter didn't follow this rule with the Shah of Iran, and the world got something worse. A majority of Iranianns disagree, and if you 'believe' in democracy, you should accept their self-determination and realize they never, ever, would have chosen the Shah, a terrible human being and torturer and puppet of the CIA, as their king. I do not think Carter allowed the Shah to enter the US after his downfall, not even for life saving surgery. I sure miss Jimmy, fewer people died at the hands of US militancy during his presidency than most others. If the CIA had not continued to interfere with the internal politics of Iran after the Shah fled, then the students would not have taken the CIA operatives of the embassy hostage. Had the US helped return the Shah to justice, as SecularAnimist wrote, the enmity of the last twenty-five years between the US and Iran probably would have been prevented. The hatred of Iran by Americans has been encouraged by the very same people who delivered civil war and mass murder to Iraq, and like the obedient authoritarians that they are, many Americans responded as planned. In order to rid ourselves of this hatred of the world's disobedience to our hegemony, I suggest we have cleansing rituals where a prominent war advocate is smeared with the blood and ashes of that girl raped, murdered and set afire by Private Green. If public disgrace of murderous politicians is practiced, it may prevent future compensatory personality types from using war as a means to gaining power. These types of people require adoration, and if they see demagoguery leads to public humiliation and disgrace, perhaps they will pursue policies that promote human welfare instead of warfare. It may also signal to the rest of the world US citizens are no longer dupes to militant toadyism. Posted by: Hostile on July 19, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINKI'd say that Iran is more dictatorship than not, even though its may be the third most democratic regime in the Middle East; the competition is pretty weak. Well, I'd say a dictatorship requires a dictator whose word is ultimately law. While Iran is by no means a full-fledged democracy, it does have elections of some meaning and an enfranchised population. Probably most accurate to call it a mix of democracy/theocracy/quasi-authoritarianism. The more important point, though, is that Iran is more "democratic" than US allies such as Saudia Arabia, Jordan, etc. Posted by: Stefan on July 19, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINKWell, I'd say a dictatorship requires a dictator whose word is ultimately law. I'm not sure of the dynamics between the Guardian Council and the Supreme Jurisprudent, so I don't know if its a true dictatorship or more of a junta, but Iran has, if not a single dictator, an unelected authoritarian body whose dictates are law and supercede any decision by the elected leadership. In a sense, its similar to the government of England after there was a formal "Parliament" but before the power of the monarchy was rendered into a ritual vestige. The more important point, though, is that Iran is more "democratic" than US allies such as Saudia Arabia, Jordan, etc. Right. Especially the former. Posted by: cmdicely on July 19, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINKex-liberal: Note [t]he difference between "coddling" an existing dictatorship and "imposing" a new dictatorship. I thought conservatives weren't into nuance and such subtle distinctions. But, then, whatever is convenient for their dementia-inspired rationalizations . . . Somehow, though, ex couldn't quite grasp the ginormous difference between criticizing Hezbollah attacks and supporting Israeli attacks, but manages to inflate the trivial and nuanced difference between supporting and furthering existing dictatorships and creating them out of whole cloth. Intellectual dishonesty from the Right is such a shocking revelation . . . not. Posted by: Advocate for God on July 19, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINKNote he difference between "coddling" an existing dictatorship and "imposing" a new dictatorship. The lesson that AfG referred to and that you claimed W learned regarded the danger of doing the former, remember this upthread: Too bad conservatives have never learned that the acts of the terrorists and vicious dictators they coddled for decades, including the Saudi monarchy, might have consquences for American soldiers and the American public, in both blood and money. You now seem to be validating the point that you, and W, have, in fact, not learned this lesson, and think the only problem is with installing dicatorships rather than coddling them. Posted by: cmdicely on July 19, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINKLet's see: 1 kidnapped Israeli soldier vs. 329 deaths, more than 1000 wounded, 1 million displaced persons, and hundreds of millions of dollars damage to the infrastructure of a nation that did not attack, just to date. Interesting . . . When Israelis were being blown up by murderous and immoral terrorists, Israel condemned the attacks specifically because they were allegedly against civilians, implying that attacks against military targets would not be considered "terrorism", and didn't take aggressive action. But when the "terrorists" attack actual military targets and capture a single soldier, Israel goes ballistic, declares all-out war against the Palestinians in Gaza and in Lebanon, invading the both, and severely damages a peace process that was actually progressing. Somebody didn't want peace. And it wasn't just some Palestinian factions. Posted by: Advocate for God on July 19, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINKHow's Mr. Barnett's New Map working out for him? Posted by: Jim Madison's Dog on July 19, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINKHostile wrote: I do not think Carter allowed the Shah to enter the US after his downfall, not even for life saving surgery. The following summary of the events of 1979 is from a CBS News article published in January 2001 on the 20th anniversary of the release of the US hostages:
The occupation of the US embassy and the seizure of American hostages for 444 days was in direct response to the Carter administration's decision to allow the Shah to enter the USA. | |