Give Iranian Nukes a Chance

Amazing. Truly amazing.

What is global hedemony anyway? It’s just another word to mask stupidity when it comes to political thinking. After all the twists and turns of Zizec’s loopy abstractions, it all comes down to that one phrase. Why even bother writing an article at all? You would’ve been more honest to simply state that you think Iran needs nukes to stop U.S. global hegemony. But then if you did that, you wouldn’t have been able to fool all those other people into believing you had an actual thoughtful piece of writing to share.

Maybe that honesty would have been too much for you? Maybe you didn’t even realize the absurdity of you own thesis, hiding it even from yourself? Surely, even you have enough common sense to realize the absurdity of suggesting that nuclear proliferation is a good thing? Especially to a country with such a wonderful record when it comes to respecting human life and dignity?

Or maybe I’m just over thinking this one? Was this meant as irony? It’s not even a good joke.

Perhaps you should substitute one word here to get a feeling for just how naive this article truly is.  Try “Give Cancer a Chance.” Ignore any warning signs and send your doctor’s diagnosis to a foreign clinic to be evaluated at their leisure.

What if the Hague decided a war criminal were guilty? What are their powers of enforcement?

Forget about “divergent timetables” — What is our obsession with prediction?  What is the timetable to pull out of Iraq?  Will the Fed continue to raise rates?  Who is likely to run for President in 2008?  Take note: The weatherman is seldom right.

“Precisely because the threat is virtual, one cannot afford to wait for it to come.”

The threats have been both vocal and visible for decades. Where have you been?

“Why have the Arab states not risked another attack on Israel? Because Israel is a nuclear power. So why should this MAD logic not work in the case of Iran?”

Who was the last suicide bomber from Israel? How many Jewish terrorists have attacked us so far? MAD worked with the Soviets and may with North Korea, but it did not work in the case of Kamikaze pilots and will not against fanatical Muslims.

It is unfortunate that Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian electrician, did not stop when ordered by police.  What would we have called it if he had indeed been wearing a dirty bomb and the police had not fired?  Perhaps the city formerly known as London what have been appropriate.
They did the only reasonable thing under the conditions they faced.  So are we in the Middle East.

The most dangerous thing we are facing is the administration’s lack of treating this as a war more threatening than WW2.  Americans are getting no training in how to deal with chemical, biological or radiological events.

What, me worry?

I find it humorous that many Americans have the mentality that we’re are the only ones who can be trusted to have nukes because somehow we posess the necessary moral fortitude to act responsibly. Some how I find our historical use of unrestricted bombing, over-seas intervention, etc… rendering any argument about our moral supperiority specious. Of course, I wouldn’t expect anything less if the tables were turned and China were the world’s sole super power. Even so, I still can’t completely shake this feeling that we SHOULD be better than that when much evidence indicates that we are not.

The US is not perfect. But other than ending a particularly nasty war that was forced on us, we have not nuked anyone either. We have no history of suicide bombers.

Muslim crazies cannot be trusted with nukes. This seems to be pretty obvious. An ongoing worry is that they could possibly obtain suitcase nukes (from the old USSR) and use them in a terrorist attack. Does anyone really doubt that these fanatics would, if they could?

This article reads like a 14 year old kid explaining to his father why he should be given the keys to the corvette (but dad, i never even had an accident!!!). Funny, but in an ironic way.

One other thing I forgot to mention is that fear or expediency doesn’t excuse the killing of De Menezes by British police. Many of the facts as stated by the authorities are in dispute and not only by his relatives. One question I had was whether or not it would be possible for anyone wearing a bomb belt to vault a turn style as easily as the deceased has been described doing. How heavy or encumbering is such a suicide device?
Another question I had is what kinds of doors does this open if someone can be more or less sumarily executed without due process merely upon the suspicion of being a terrorist? I know that in many circles the security of the nation state trumps the rights of individuals, but what if YOU were one of those individuals mistakenly slain by those sworn to protect? Would kind of suck being you, wouldn’t it? But what if I told your grieving family that it was a tragic accident, and that we were just doing our jobs? Do you think that they would accept that and move on? I suspect not. But instead what you have seeping into the media is that somehow because he was living in the UK illegally that he some how deserved to be killed. He shouldn’t have run. He shouldn’t have this, he shouldn’t have that. What I think really happened is the same thing that causes a lot of hunting accidents and that is that if people are really expecting to see a white tail deer, they will. They were expecting a terrorist to walk out of that apartment building. They were expecting that they would have no choice but to use deadly force because they could expect no mercy or no quarter themselves. And such is the insidious nature of escalation. We have to be MORE vicious and deadly then the enemy in order to defeat him, but by doing so we only become like our enemy. This is a victory for terrorists as this strikes at the very heart of democracy. If we have to give up all of our rights because someone might have a bomb, if we are executed because we might be a threat, then the very society we claim to be protecting will cease to exist. It will be no better than Stalinist Russia.

Wolf, Muslim extremists did not appear out of thin air. We created them through direct and indirect means. And like Frankenstein’s monster, they came back seeking to destroy their creator. Ultimately the trend of escalating violence from the Middle East is a consequence of various failures in U.S. policy from the 2nd world war to the present. We did what we had to do for the sake of short term goals. We had to win the Cold War and we needed strategic partnerships. Regardless of whether or not they were democratic. Regardless of their brutality. All we wanted was people who’d stand up to communism and people who would do business with us. Truth, Justice and the American way didn’t even enter the equation.
As for the nuclear suitcase bomb, I think that we are making it easier for them to get their hand on it rather than harder. For example, by engaging in a war in Iraq we are generating massive amounts of sympathy for the Wahhabist cause in the world at large. Sympathy can be exploited as we have seen with many muslim “charities” acting as money laundering schemes for various terrorizt organizations. In essence we have been trying to solve a problem militarily than cannot be solved in that way. It can only be solved by a combination of economic means, undercover work and strategic alliances with other countries’ covert agencies. Invading countries is quite simply put a waste of time, materials and lives.

If American’s would take the time to consider why it seems reasonable to some people that Iran should have nuclear weapons as a deterant against them, then they would be a whole lot closer to winning their “War on Terror”.

If the editors are wondering why this magazine is stumbling so badly I would suggest you reflect on the bizzare last sentence of the article. It is the most perfectly asinine closing statement I think I have ever heard by a “professional” writer.

I read your magazine b/c I have been occasionally influenced by it on some topics. But truly, this is beyond absurd. I would normally like to have a good debate on the points of an article. But to do that for an article like this would be like arguing with a child (more like a mini-Chomsky wannabe really, but without the vocab command).

ITT does a great job on some things. Labor relations, race relations, environmental issues, etc. etc. And I hope y’all can stay in business. Unfortunately, this article happens to suck big time.

The obvious difference between secular-minded, this-world-centered powers and other-world-oriented powers like religious revolutionaries is that those whose emphasis is upon this world are more willing to ponder the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, both upon their victims, the natural environment, and in retaliation against themselves. If you think that’s an unfair formulation, consider the readiness of suicide bombers motivated by religious zeal to kill themselves and dozens of innocents. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t fully trust reason to prevail even with the more secular-minded bunch, but I find it much more plausible to imagine that people whose focus is upon Heaven or some other post-death realm would consider the use of nukes in this world to be a less scary proposition. Maybe they’d think their pathway to Paradise would be smoothed by unleashing a holocaust against the infidel du jour.

And aside from all that, it just doesn’t make sense to suggest that the proliferation of any kind of weapon makes that weapon less likely to be used in the future. The frequent role of guns in American crime is an example.

As for American hegemony, I think that will be mitigated better when other powers gain economic and cultural influence, rather than by way of a new incarnation of the nuclear arms race.

Nightmarish.

I should have reread my previous post. This does seem to make some sense now. This is the paper that publishes articles from a pretty Anti-Semitic pen (and a strong supporter of Jew haters like Farrakhan).

Anybody who wants to see the destruction of Israel, or just wish to see them feel pain, know that the only truly massive threat to them would be the acquistion of nuclear weaponry by fanatical Muslim states (be them Persian/Arab/Sunni or Arab).

With the recent Iranian election of a radically conservative president over Khatami this is the perfect time for rags like this to promote more nuclear weapons in the region and around the globe (or did you pen this out before - just joking! of course you didn’t).

ITT-
Fine, block off my registration from now on. You are the idiots that think more nuclear weapons are a good idea.

What a lot of people seem not to realize is that the more countries that have nuclear weapons and pose a threat to America, the more domestic tax dollars end up eventually in the pockets of the rich.  Here’s how it works…

For the super rich in this country probably the greatest way to transfer dollars from the pockets of ordinary working people to those at the top is via government spending on the military and related industries.

We spend so much on the military in this country, many times more proportionally than any other nation on earth.  But the fact that this happens has nothing to do with the actual defense of our country, it has more to do with the redistribution of wealth from the general public to the already wealthy. 

Sound crazy?  Well read on.

Rather than discourage nuclear proliferation George W. Bush and his cohorts have indirectly encouraged it.  Everyone in the world (except for conservatives in America) knew that Sadam did not in any way pose an actual nuclear threat.  To everyone else in the world it looked as if Iraq was invaded precisely because it did NOT have nuclear weapons.

To make this point clear, Pakistan, the actually hiding place of none other than Usama Bin Laden, quietly slips under the radar of serious U.S. attention.  Surely Pakistan would be the perfect place to take the fight to Bin Laden.  But there is a problem, a nuclear problem.  Mess with Pakistan and you could end up with a very serious black eye.

Iran and North Korea see this, and despite conservative propaganda, are not just ‘evil’.  Their original reasons for desiring nuclear weapons are pretty much the same as ours, to be the big boys on the block, but the current situation is different.  They think to themselves a very simple thought.  To stop America from trying to invade my country, I now NEED a nuclear arsenal.  Fare enough.  Horrible, but logical.

So how does this play into the hands of Bush and his supporters?  Well it is actually really simple.  The more credible threats you create in the world via nuclear proliferation, the more a super inflated military budget will be absolutely guaranteed for the at least the next few decades.  Anyone with shares, or a financial interest, in Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Boeing, and many, many others have an almost unimaginable source of future income to look forward to.

As a beautiful side effect (for the bastard conservatives) all our hard earned tax money, which could actually be used to fund a national health system, a better education for our children, and programs to help the poor, is actually wasted on a fictional defense, to a problem we ourselves have created.

The neo-cons have been trying to find anyway they possibly can to dismantle the majority of FDR’s New Deal.  That is how far their resentment goes, that is how much they hate the idea of people being helped by other people.  Spending ludicrous amounts on the military and other related industries is just one way to justify spending less on the things that should have money spent on them, like social programs to help the poor and disadvantaged.  It also makes some very rich people much, much wealthier into the bargain.

Still sound crazy?  Well, we shall see.

Clarification of Iran’s intentions: Under the headline, “RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL” the Iran Press Service reported the following comments of former president Rafsanjani in December, 2001:

“If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world”, (Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani speaking to the crowd at traditional Friday prayers in Tehran).

Stalemate indeed. But the population disparity, when calculated along Jewish vs. Muslim lines, makes this a bit different from India and Pakistan or the U.S. and the former U.S.S.R.

Maltida: “For the super rich in this country probably the greatest way to transfer dollars from the pockets of ordinary working people to those at the top is via government spending on the military and related industries.”

Tell that to Sam Walton (difficult since he’s dead, tell his heirs) and Bill Gates. Defense contracting is a business that can be somewhat lucrative, but so other types of businesses can be considerably more so.

If we can prevent Iran from getting nukes, it is a no-brainer that that is in the best interests for the world and especially the Middle East. Crazies with nukes - can’t we all agree it is a bad idea. (Personally i like the idea of global disarment, with the US *slowly* shedding its stockpile.)

I have one small gripe after re-reading the article:
“ (Iran is the only large Arab state which not only does not diplomatically recognize Israel, but resolutely denies its right to exist as a state). “

Iran is not ethnically Arab. In fact, Arabs are roughly only 3% of the population in Iran.

to misterk: So the situation with a nuclear armed Iran stalemated with Israel would more resemble our situation with China.
(For more on this, refer to an article by Paul Craig Roberts http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08112005.html)
I agree with wolf’s statement about moving towards global disarmament. I doubt that this will happen any time soon given the level of distrust that exists between many of the nation-states, however, it is a noble and worthy goal.
Also, I think the point Matilda Gatsby was trying to make about the Military Industrial complex is that unlike the Waltons and Bill Gates, Boeing, BAE, etc… are direct beneficieries of government spending where as Wal-Mart and Microsoft depend more on private sector money. Excepting any tax breaks or loopholes, of course. :)

It is astounding that neither Slavoj Zizek’s piece, nor any of the subsequent comments, even mention the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

The exchanges here would be elevated considerably if they were informed by a careful reading of that rather important treaty, and the obligations it places on those who have signed it; as well as by a better understanding of why not only the United States and other nations, but also the NPT’s watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are deeply troubled by Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment and other civilian nuclear activities that can be used to bring a nation close to building a nuclear bomb.

Let’s push Zizek’s logic to what I find to be its rather absurd logical conclusion:  If the world would be stable with a nuclear-armed Iran, wouldn’t it be safer if even more nations built nuclear weapons?

I think not.

If Iran builds the bomb, this may sufficiently encourage Saudi Arabia to follow.  Which may enrourage Syria to follow.  Which may encourage Turkey to follow.  And so on.

Do we really want to live in that world?

I think not.

Iranians are Persian. They are completely different from Arabs. Nice point out Volvillian. This article just keeps on giving!

I could see how Zizek would completely flub up the very important religious, ethnic, and historical differences between the various people of the Middle East.

But again, a statement like this makes it through the editorial process of this paper?! Do you guys post online before going to the press? I really hope you do! With Ivins putting out the most embarrassing recant in recent memory I hope the Progressive press can find a new process to vet material to limit embarrassing errors.

Speaking of the NPT, it’s nice to know that Israel never signed, yet Iran did. What’s up with that? Oh, I know, how it works. Anyone says one word about Israel in a way they don’t like and outcome the anti-semite accusations. Okay, I’m ready for my punishment. Come and get me Mr. Dershowitz.
Thanks for the Kudos MiddleRoad!
My dream is to one day be a bad ass copy editor, but now a days it seems like proof reading and research of facts take a back seat when one is too busy pushing an agenda rather than facts!

Saddam, of course, had no interest in toppling the Iranian government—he just wanted the Iranian oil fields. Actually overcoming and attempting to control a country full of Shiites would be his worst nightmare. Later on, he finally figured out that Kuwait was an easier target: he really didn’t expect the western powers to take action. Yet another grievous mistake of his.

A previous poster insinuates that the Iranian regime is like a cancer. This is a good analogy; unfortunately, when we could have taken care of the cancer at an early stage, the physician in charge (Mr. Carter) was afraid to deal with it. Its malignancy continues to be a severe problem.

It is quite rational that the Iranians can, through a 3rd party, deliver nuclear strikes on the U.S. without great fear of military repercussion. They’ve stated that they want to do something such as this, and I have no reason to doubt them. Simply believing that they won’t do it does not make it so.

One method of dealing with Iran might be to actively enlist the support of the Russians, whom we have tried hard to antagonize the past decade or so. Enlisting their support would likely mean we’d get serious about helping them with their Chechen problem, though, which is probably why it hasn’t happened yet.

The War on Terror, unlike the despicable War on Drugs, actually does have an enemy. The U.S. really has been attacked multiple times by Middle Eastern terrorists, who still assert that they intend to attack again. Surely one cannot think that they’re simply going to fade away becuase we would like that?

Matilda-
You said:
“Rather than discourage nuclear proliferation George W. Bush and his cohorts have indirectly encouraged it.  Everyone in the world (except for conservatives in America) knew that Sadam did not in any way pose an actual nuclear threat.  To everyone else in the world it looked as if Iraq was invaded precisely because it did NOT have nuclear weapons.”

I am not certain how closely you followed the goings on prior to the invasion of Iraq, but here are a few examples of the “Bush Cohorts”
who were convinced that Iraq had come close to aquiring nukes:  Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Kofi Anon, the British, German AND French security agencies, as well as Isreal’s Massad. And, oh yeah, the Congress of the United States.  The UN Security Council passed 17 resolutions calling for Saddam to give up the pursuit of his weapons of mass destruction. By that, they didn’t mean tanks and planes.  Boy those slimey Bush cohorts, huh?  Oh? We didn’t find any WMD? Next time you can’t find your wallet or car keys, just tell yourself that they really never existed.
Iraq was invaded because the best time to stop a madman from getting nukes is BEFORE he gets them.  A philosophy lost on Clinton who sold nuclear technology and material to the North Koreans because they promised to be good boys.
Iran should be hit hard if they continue to persue nukes before they get them.  After they obtain nukes, an obvious position to point out, (except to conservatives in America)...its too late to stop them...BECAUSE THEY NOW HAVE NUKES.
See how it works?
Bad guys get nukes, they become untouchable.
Why must we wait til they actually get them? We have to make a decision in this world:  Are we going to let bad guys get nukes?  I thought you guys on the Left were AGAINST nuclear proliferation.  Hell, I know I am.
Everyday I thank GOD Bush beat Kerry.

Henry B,
Unfortunately we have tackled the problem of terrorism as if it is in and of itself the sickness. The reality is that terrorism is merely a symptom of a set of other problems. Of course our conduct of this war on terror has only excacerbated the conditions which spawn suicidal religious zealots, so we have even more global instability to look frward to. Just the kind of world I’d like my daughter to grow up in. Thanks to the clowns on both sides of the aisle that mask their agendas with anemic platitudes and empty talk of freedom, democracy and liberty. Hey, any fool can open his mouth and espouse a set of ideals, but few ever put them into practice. If we were serious about eliminating terror, then by default we’d have to be serious about justice and ethics and humanity, but those things have just become screen words used to keep the citizenry of the US from barking to loudly and upsetting the imperialist ambitions of our government. Democrats included!

Ms. Gatsby -

“Everyone in the world (except for conservatives in America) knew that Sadam did not in any way pose an actual nuclear threat.”

“Everyone in the world” is a lot of people.  Can you be a little more specific and name three of them?

In 1998, the House of Representatives passed the Iraq Liberation Act 360-38.  The Senate passed the Act by unanimous consent.  President Clinton signed the Act into law.  Regime change in Iraq has been a matter of USA law since 1998.

Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors was one principal reason for the Act.  Many Democratic politicians, including Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Levin, and Rockefeller (not to mention a few Republicans) were quoted, at the time and subsequently, that Saddam had WMD and nuclear programs, and that he was a threat to the world and to the United States.  Even Hans Blix and Mohammed El-Baradei, in their final reports to the UN before hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003, referred to the ongoing presence of “illegal” weapons in Iraq.

Both Congressional chambers passed the Iraq War Resolution in 2003 with big majorities.

AFTER hostilities began, there commenced serious questions about the existence of WMD in Iraq.  Kevin Drum, then writing as calpundit, explored the Internet and asked for input about WMD.  In Drum’s extensive research, exactly two knowledgeable people questioned the presence of WMD in Iraq BEFORE the start of hostilities: Vladimir Putin and Scott Ritter.  Probably not coincidentally, Putin and Ritter were both indirect recipients and profiteers of Saddam’s bribery in the Oil for Food scandal.

Not a single US politician nor any of the Western intelligence agencies stated before March 2003 that Saddam had no WMD.

Since you think that “every one in the world” knew that there was no threat, would you please identify any credible quotes that you have predating March 2003 in support of your position?  I would be ever so grateful.

In the absence of supporting documentation, would you kindly refrain from talking nonsense?

Perhaps instead of imprisoning Eric Rudolph, we should seek to understand the root causes of killing abortion doctors? The reality is that killing abortion doctors is merely a symptom of a set of other problems (and really, when you think about it, it is really more noble - at least they target the “offending” people, rather than just random civilians). If we were serious about eliminating abortion doctor killers, then by default we’d have to be serious about justice (no more baby killers) and ethics (taking innocent life is wrong) and humanity, but those things have just become screen words used to keep the citizenry of the US from barking to loudly and upsetting the imperialist ambitions of our government. Republicans included!

Or maybe we should realize that some people do not really understand that killing innocent people is just wrong. Whether they are “infidels” riding on a subway or doctors who perform controversial procedures. . .

Volvillian--
I understand your angst, but you said:
“If we were serious about eliminating terror, then by default we’d have to be serious about justice and ethics and humanity” and “Thanks to the clowns that mask their agendas with anemic platitudes and empty talk of freedom, democracy and liberty.”

Now, if you would be so kind as to provide a definition of those terms that everyone in the entire world could agree upon, I think you might be on to something.  Until then, those words are defined by everyone differently. What is justice to a Jihadist bomber? Going to Hell? Gettin’ jiggy with 72 virgins in Heaven? 30 lashes with a wet noodle? A painful death? To be made the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize? And the same questions can be applied to “ethics”.  Is it ethical to suppress protest against the war?  Is it ethical to support the enemy with inflammatory statements against our troops and against the good cause for which we fight? The anemic platitudes that you speak against, are found in abundance in your own commentary.

Scorp--
Have you wondered where the Left and the press would be on this Iraqi war thing if Clinton did the invading instead of Bush?  Not a word was spoken when Bubba went into Bosnia...WITHOUT a vote from Congress or permission from the UN.  But Viola! He was a “GREAT president”, and Bush is likened to Hitler and the very terrorists he fights. Both World Wars One, & Two and Vietnam were all started by Democratic presidents. A Democrat president dropped not one but two atomic bombs on the Japanese. Maybe we should just let the Dems start all the wars, and we could demonize THEM for being war-mongers. 
Things that make you go “hmmmm”

IsThisThingOn- I see the point you are making. I suppose that I could have been more specific in my original post, but I was operating under the possibly misguided notion of trying to be brief and not offer up too rambling a monologue. To be blunt, what I was trying to convey is that when we talk about justice as Americans there is a more definable range than say what Justice might mean for someone from a different culture. At the risk of being pilloried, I’d say that the majority of Americans deplore murder. However, as you rightly point out there are many instances that someone would call murder and another would call justice. That can be applied to Death Penalty cases, abortion bombings, etc… Now, my own background on this is that I believe that killing innocent people is a bad thing, whether it is suicide bombers, police, soldiers, etc… Now where my conflict with America is that “unintentional” killing is part of the norm. Like, the need to break a few eggs to make an omellette, which is fine if you’re living comfortably in Massachussetts, but not so well if you happened to be a resident of Fallujah or Jenin. In essence, I perhaps naively believe that the ends doesn’t justify the means, that there are alternatives to direct military intervention. For example, the difficulties in Northern Ireland didn’t subside because of “Shock and Awe” but by agreeing to meet and try to work out the differences between the involved parties. I know it doesn’t have the same dramatic effect of a daisy cutter or bunker buster, but hey, life isn’t perfect.
The other thing I want to mention since you brought up Bubba Clinton is that I am not a blind devotee of some party, be it Republican or Democrat, green or libertarian. There are politicians that I think are fools and then there are some that I respect, regardless of what party affiliation they claim. By and large US policy hasn’t differed much more than a few degrees regardless of whether there was a mule or an elephant at the helm. It’s all about the Benjamins.

How many times did Clinton change his story about the reason he went to war? Do we know the real reason for Bush yet? Will we ever?

Bush administration officials, who estimated that Iran was only five years away from such a weapon.
Has bush admin. been right on anything?
any nation that gets the nuke bomb, U.S.A. will leave them alone. That is why it is so important to get the bomb when you live in that neighborhood.
Iran knows that we can’t attack them. We can’t start another war because iraq is kicking are ass.
america freaked out when india,and pakistan got the bomb. Iran and north korea are next to get the bomb and there is nothing the U.S. can do about it, but bitch and promise sanctions.
bush is nothing like hitler, hitler was a great public speaker.
clinton went to war with bosnia, but 10% were american troops the rest were nato troops that’s 90% non american troops. It did not cost 1.3 billion dollars a week and I don’t remember any U.S. troops dead. Clinton was nominated for the noble peace prize for his efforts.
Vietnam,U.S. gave money, guns, supplies, and training to south vietnam. The reason to fight the north vietnam people who were commies. When the south built their army up enough to fight the north commies we the U.S. would stand down and come home.
Does any of this sound familiar?

Thinking we’d be better off with the fanatical terrorists who run Iran being armed with nuclear weapons is not an example of clear thinking.  If there must be a hegemon, we should be it.

IsThisThingOn, Saddam is not a mad man, sorry, we are actually the aggressors, and you can thank God all you like, he doesn’t exist.

Am I the only person in America with the guts to admit that ordinary Iraqis were better off under Saddam than they are now? Cold-blooded murderer that he was he doesn’t have half the blood on his hands that we do.  A hundred thousand dead and civil war on the horizon, what thanks does Iraq really owe our ‘brave’ boys.  Maybe in a decade or two ordinary Iraqi people will benefit from the removal of Saddam, or maybe another Saddam will take control, a fundamentalist Muslim Saddam, one who will really help the terrorists. 

We are the real bad guys in this situation.  For goodness sake act like real men, stand up and take responsibility for this atrocity.  To hear conservatives squeal and squirm and justify the killing of so many thousands of people like used car salesmen, it makes me sick.  All in the name of freedom, what a repulsive joke. 

To all you knuckle headed, conscienceless conservatives out there, read my first post again and allow yourself to ask the obvious question.  Who benefits from this situation, who definitely benefits no matter how it turns out?  You guys just cannot see the wood for the trees can you?

Lastly, just because you managed to fool a lot of otherwise well meaning people into believing your lies doesn’t mean you can smear them with your shit now.  WAKE UP!

Another thing, democrats did not start world war two, I was always under the impression that was Germany and Japan. 

And yes, any democrat who acts like a conservative is as bad as a conservative. 

The democrats in our country are actually a center right political party, in opposition to an extremist far right political party.  Real liberals often support the democrats because the alternative is the murderous republicans.  Unfortunately the democrats are often half in bed with the ultra right wing in this country, so what can ordinary people do?

Republicans have the moral values of fascists, just without the balls.  Any democrat who drops an atomic bomb is actually a wannabe conservative.

Chopper- Are you really prepared to pay what it actually costs to be a hegemon? Usually when someone makes the statement that they want US imperialism, they are the last people who want to do anything to support it, other than running their mouths. I guess it is far easier spending other peoples money, killing other peoples kids, etc… Talking tough and being tough are two different things and if you want to put your money where your mouth is, enlist, volunteer, whatever.
Another point is that if we wan’t to prevent nuclear proliferation, we need to stop threatening to invade other countries to initiate regime change. If our leaders didn’t routinely threaten Iran as often as they do, there might be more room for a negotiated settlement.
Also, do you really believe that every Muslim, in every country is a fanatic poised to strike at the US? That Iran would really risk even an indirect nuclear strike against us? As it is they are in our cross hairs with minimal provocation. So what do you think our knee jerk reaction would be if a nuke was used against us by a terrorist group. Whether or not the attack was affiliated with Iran, Iran would get nuked. It’s just that simple. So really, wouldn’t it really be in Iran’s best interest to not give terrorists nukes? But to hedge their bets they might want a few of their own to deter an invasion.

How on earth can you invoke MAD with a nation like Israel? They are too small, they don’t have submarine based missiles, they don’t have something like SAC 24 hour coverage, they just don’t have the retaliatory capability that the US and USSR did during the Cold War. MAD doesn’t work here.

4-8 nukes would destroy the entire nation (so even if they were able to lob a few at Iran post launch it wouldn’t do a whole lot of good).

You didn’t even mention Osirak and what the Israelis would have to inevitably do if Iran begins production of UR235 or plutonium big time. What do you think the consequences of such an action would be?

Iran is one of the few states to have admitted to engaging in state sponsored terrorism. Hey, give the Lockerbie bombers and Hezbollah funders the bomb (their proliferation of plastique explosives, shaped charges, and remote detonation just aren’t enough)! Brilliant!

What a sick mind, uniformed mind. But it does prove, as long as you are “Progressive”, that you can get published!

Zizek quoting Nietzsche:

“. . . Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest just as much as our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a harmless and awkward victim without any fight. . . . “

This kind of argument, although true, overlooks the underlying cause of this kind of behavior - the primative, vestigial, human survival instinct for tribalism.  Pretty pathetic, don’t you think.  The very notion of “other” is a manifestation of tribalism.

But, tribalism isn’t what motivates the Bush crime family, or any other that Machiavellian fascist dictator, to wage war against those who cannot harm us.  Tribalism is the vehicle fascists use to justify war profiteering in the minds of the public, so to gain their support.

Having said all that - why no nukes for Iran? Because Iran is a religious fundimentalist state that has a history of engaging in and exporting terrorism by martars who have demonstrated a willing to kill themselves in order to kill those they perceive as the other tribe.  Under those circumstances, those martars who would use nuclear power for terrorist purposes, it seems to me, are not discouraged by the potential nuclear retaliation of the perceived enemy.

PS: Why not send Noriega to the Hague?  Well, lets see . . . .  Because Noriega was a cocaine dealer for Daddy Bush and the CIA, and they don’t want him to testify?  That’s why the U.S. federal court exercised illegal jurisdiction over the sovereign of a forign country for violating U.S. drug laws - to incarcerate him and keep him silent. No?

Slavoj Zizek makes a lot of valid points regarding Iran’s attempt to be included into the nuclear armed states. Clearly, Pakistan and India will be tempted to use their own nuclear weapons if border conflicts rage out of control and the issue of Kashmir escalates further.

Besides, once Bush announced his policy of preemptive strikes against countries that may or could be threats down the road, it makes perfectly good sense that other nations, whether we like them or not, can justifiably use the same rationale to attack their perceived opponents as well.

A convincing argument can be made that anyone today can get hold of nuclear and/or biological weapons on the black market quite easily. Russia’s impoverished nuclear scientists and physicists, many of whom were tossed out of work after the end of the Cold War, can and have sold their nuclear knowledge expertise to other countries. It is also a well-established fact that Pakistan’s rogue scientist, A.Q. Kahn, provided nuclear secrets to both Iran and North Korea.

Israel, though not officially included in the exclusive club of nations in possessing nuclear weapons, nonetheless has those weapons in spite of the fact they have not declared them openly. Fat chance that if Iran ever attacked Israel for any reason, even with conventional weapons, that Israel wouldn’t retaliate aggressively by using their nuclear capabilities to repel any attack by Iran.

I am also convinced that G. W. Bush will launch air strikes against Iran with or without Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s support. Why do I believe this? Because before 9/11 Bush’s approval ratings were already heading south, hovering somewhere around 50%. They shot up to over 90% during the Afghanistan bombing and the ousting of the Taliban and remained in the stratosphere even longer than his father’s 85% during the height of the Gulf War. Bush puts his own vainglory ahead of anything else, including the welfare and interests of America. His thirst to be admired and revered completely overwhelm all other considerations.

Germany’s foreign intelligence chief August Hanning said recently that terrorism is radiating from Iraq and further attacks are expected around the Middle East. Hanning stated, “We fear developments in Iraq are radiating outwards.” This comment flies in the face of Bush and his military commanders’ claims that, like moths drawn to a flame, the U.S. is defeating terrorism in Iraq so that we don’t have to confront them elsewhere. 

Once the USA Patriot Act with its renewed executive powers is rammed through the gutless, lapdog Republican-controlled U.S. Congress later this year, we will hear a heightened rhetoric and more saber rattling to bomb Iran. The biggest question that has yet to be answered is whether or not Bush will try to invade and occupy Iran with ground troops. It is unlikely with an already stretched-thin all-volunteer U.S. military that that is feasible.

The only recourse will be for Bush to use his executive edicts to reinstate the Selective Service draft, even if it’s only temporary, to accomplish one of the linchpins in toppling another Middle East Islamic government and replace it with a Bush-mandated puppet regime as he has done in Iraq. And would Bush use nuclear weapons? I believe he would, but only if he had the same certitude that God Himself appointed him to smite the enemy as his “moral values” acolytes have asserted.

In that case, if Bush times it right, it will solidify his power in Congress in 2006 once the solid phalanx of evangelical extremists are convinced that this event would bring about their much-craved-for Armageddon and End of Days biblical prophecy.

Richard2 said:

“In that case, if Bush times it right, it will solidify his power in Congress in 2006 once the solid phalanx of evangelical extremists are convinced that this event would bring about their much-craved-for Armageddon and End of Days biblical prophecy.”

Very good. But, you have to complete the analysis.  Bush’s only true motivation is money and power.  How will Bush use these events as a subterfuge for self service - the personal enrichment of the Bush crime family and their friends.

Richard2,

BTW, when you look closely at christian extremists and their belief in the impending armageddon, it seems that they could easily take the next step - to martardom, en masse.  Obviously, some have already taken the leap, the abortion doctor assassin comes to mind.

Lefty, yup, all that and more I agree with you. But, I had to pare down my rant since I pushed beyond my allocated word count re ITT limits. Oh, how wordy I can be. Ha, ha.

Matilda Gatsby writes “...The democrats in our country are actually a center right political party, in opposition to an extremist far right political party....”

After I stopped laughing at this, I began to wonder if ‘Matilda’ was heavy into peyote. The Democratic Party, at least since the early 1980’s, is basically a totalitarian party along the lines of Stalin (but w/o the death camps for its enemies [yet]). It worships communism and UTTERLY HATES individual liberty. Its rhetoric to the contrary reminds me of countries with the word ‘Democratic’ in their titles: virtually all are dictatorships. To describe the Democratic Party as “center right” is utterly ridiculous.

And now back to our main topic, Iranians with nuclear weapons. Iran under the current wacko Muslim regime IS TO BE TRUSTED: it says that it wants to kill us, and it WILL attempt to do so. These are fanatics: they are not like the Russians of the 1950’s, who would say such but only mean to bluff. If there is no regime change in Iran, then for our own preservation, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. These are like folks down the street stating that they’re going to drop by to kill you one of these days...if you ignore them, you’re likely to end up prematurely dead.

Glad I made you laugh HenryB.  You are just a stupid guy, but hey, it won’t be the last time someone on the far right will be called stupid, so take heart. 

There is no real left wing in this country, and of course people who think Bill O’Reilly is fair and balanced are going to consider the democrats to be on the political left.  Anywhere else in the world the democrats would be considered a center right party and the republicans would be considered neo-fascists. 

But it is totally wrong to compare the American conservatives to the Nazis, I mean the Nazis were invading countries without a legitimate reason and threatening others… wait a minute.

Also, HenryB, I am sorry to hear you are so afraid of Iran, it must be quite tiring to have to live in constant fear, and how dare our government only spend $400 Billion on defense a year.  You sound to me like a bit of a coward, shaking in your boots over such a small country. Stand up straight and find some backbone, only cowards strike first out of fear.

Or does the thought of thousands of people being blown to bits in the Persian Gulf kind of turn you on?

The only reason our ultra right wing government doesn’t want other countries to have nukes is because then it cannot invade them whenever it feels like it.  If any other nation ever nuked one of our cities it would be immediately flattened by an overwhelming counter strike, and they definitely know this.

As for individual terrorists, well at some point we are just going to have to arrest them all (impossible) or else make peace using genuine diplomacy, like the British did with the IRA.  The British spent thirty years trying to smash that organization, but looked what happened when they finally stopped trying to flatten the IRA and started addressing some of their genuine concerns.  Peace eventually broke out.  Today we have a different situation with the Islamic Fundamentalists, but not so different that we can’t at least look at the things we are doing that causes them to take arms against us.

There are very few real madmen in this world, and most of those can’t even dress themselves, let alone build an atomic bomb.

We are all a lot safer than the conservatives in this country want us to feel, because how else are we going to let them spend so much on the military.  Gee it must be great to have no conscience, to be totally unclouded by right and wrong, and for the murder of tens of thousands of people to be okay as long as it makes you ‘feel’ better.

The ends do not always justify the means.  Get over it, and GROW UP!

Hey Matilda, It’s nice to see someone else out there that believes that security and peace can be achieved sans armed intervention.
The Democratic party is totalitarian, in the sense that a minority center-right cabal controls the money and sets the course. I believe most democrats are more left leaning, but not of the Stalinist vein. Hate to disappoint HenryB and his Bill O’reily talking points, but most grassroot Dems want decent wages, universal health care, envoirnmental protection. They don’t want death camps or pogroms. Unless they’re the quasi-fascist Senator Libermann, that is. How he can even be called liberal, I just don’t know....

volvillaian, you should have read my post more closely.  Nowhere did I accuse all Muslims of being fanatical terrorists.  What I said was that the rulers of Iran WHERE fanatical terrorists.  They’ve given ample evidence of this.  You are assuming they will behave rationally.  They won’t.  I didn’t even say we should be a hegemon, I merely said if there has to be one we should be it.  As for your personal attack (the usual all purpose tiresome charge made by those on the left) I did try to enlist in the Service many years algo.  I was rejected for medical reasons (bad knees).

bush is a joke.everyone who voted for him are getting what they deserve.

Volvillain,
Agreed!  Terrorism is brought about by other problems. I suppose we can say the same about any variety of crime.

Poverty, ignorance, superstition, hunger, greed, prejudice, retaliation — the list is endless. Whatever the cause the effects need to be dealt with in real time, in real conditions. We cannot afford to wait for utopia or a massive change in human nature.

That is not to say we should make an all out effort to do away with any of the elements involved to the best of our ability. To do that we must first of all survive.

Chopper- You’re right, you didn’t say that all muslims were terrorists. my mistake, but I would continue to challenge your assessment that they are fanatical terrorists unable to act rationally. Certainly they adhere to a strict form of Islam and have a strong anti-west bias, but their recent conduct certainly doesn’t strike me as being irrational. Quite the contrary if indeed Ahmed Chalabi was their means of getting us embroiled in Iraq. I’d say if that was their gambit, that that would be quite Machiavellian of them, but not crazy. Crazy would be us, taking the bait, hook line and sinker.
Sorry that you took the charge of not enlisting as a personal attack. I happen to know MANY people who espouse a pro-imperial agenda that are in good helath that say they can’t enlist because they have a career, family, etc… Like our men in uniform don’t have any of those things. But let’s get back to my original question… Do you really know what that will cost us to be a hegemon? Are you prepared to make some other kind of sacrifice to get us there?

Volvillain, I’m not saying we should necessarily be a hegemon, at least not in the sense that we should attempt to dominate every other nation on earth & take action against them every time they do something we don’t like.  And I stand by my statement that the mullahs running Iran are fanatics.  Certainly they are cunning & would be smart enough to avoid a direct nuclear attack against us (but they may directly attack Israel).  They are known supporters of terrorism and I find it entirely crediable that they would help a terrorist organization detonate a bomb in the United States and then disavow responsibility.  Many problems can be solved sans armed intervention, but not all of them.  The attacks against us on 9/11 demanded a military response, for instance, or we would just have invited more of them.

HenryB,
If you think the Democrat Party in the US is Communist, you need to get out and about more my friend. This kind of rave, complete with capital letters, just serves to prove to people from other democracies that there is something skewed about US right whingers. You are so out of touch with the real world, that means the 95% of the world that doesn’t actually live in the US that it would be laughable if it wasn’t so scary. Wake up and smell the coffee.

The US doesn’t have a social democratic party of the kind notable in the UK and Australia and New Zealand. What it has it seems to everyone else, is two versions of the same party. Now unless you want to argue that Australia and the UK and New Zealand are stalinist regimes, carting the battling little business people off to the Gulags, you will need to take an aspirin and have a good lie down otherwise you are in danger of being carted you off to the funny farm. You guys scare me sometimes, especially when I remember you have nukes. You and the people like you are simply right wing nutters - no more, no less.

So, chopper, the attacks on us on 9/11 demanded a military response did they?  And what will happen if Saudi Arabia decides to attack us again?  I suppose we’ll invade Norway shall we, or perhaps France?  That would make about as much sense as invading Iraq.

Also, what do you think will be the long-term results of our unprovoked invasion of Iraq? 

If you kill three thousand New Yorkers then a reasonably large number of people will perhaps know someone who knows someone who was lost. 

If you kill a hundred thousand Iraqis then every single person in the country will have lost loved ones, or else know someone who died.

What do you think the survivors will end up feeling, especially the orphans? Will they love America, or will grow up despising America?  I think its fair to say that a percentage of them will consider taking up arms against us eventually, in one way or another.  Wouldn’t you?  If America were invaded by another country, say China, and your family were shot or blown to bits, or otherwise killed in the chaos?  You’d be hell bent on revenge, wouldn’t you?  Sure, some people would eventually forgive and forget, but many would not.  Violence really does beget violence.

Iraqis are people too, and they do not recognize us as their superiors in anyway.  They are Human Beings the same as us, proud, defiant and intelligent.  Some of them will undoubtedly try to take revenge on America, and terror groups like Al Qaeda will be around to help them do it.  Bush has made the future of our country generally less safe, not more, while setting in motion events that have claimed the lives of more innocent people than Saddam or Bin Laden were able to kill combined.

Bush and the neo-cons are guilty of murder and should be held accountable in a court of law.  Unfortunately they are the law.  There was no justification for the invasion of Iraq, not 9/11, not supposed weapons of mass destruction, not ‘regime change’, nothing.  Iraq was not a threat to us, and in no shape or form was the killing of its citizens justified.  To think anything else is to indulge the morality of fascism.

Meanwhile Bin Laden goes free.  You need a bad guy after all, otherwise it would not be so easy for Bush to justify his laughable ‘War on Terror’. 

More like a war on truth.

Amen Matilda! Rock on with that last post.
Chopper- I don’t agree with your conclusions about Iran because if they so much as blink the wrong way, they’ll get nuked. The reality is that if Saudis attack us again, Iran gets socked. If Pakistanis attack us, Iran will get socked for it. Whether they’re connected to any future attacks or not, if America gets whacked, Iran will pay the price. That’s why Hizbollah in Lebanon has been relatively quiet for a few years. Actually, it looks as though Hizbollah is starting to go the way of Seinn Feinn with fielding elected officials, stepping down the violence, etc… Note to all you hawks out there: Lebanon’s progress didn’t come because of “shock and awe,” or “boots on the ground.” Their progress has been one of dialogue. Has it been perfect? No. Are there still political killings? Yes, but much less then 10 years ago. That’s what happens when you bring everyone to the table, terrorists included, because one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Ethan Allen is one of my heros, but to the Brits, he would have been a terrorist, had the word been in vogue back then.
Oh and another thing… Why do people still talk as though 9/11 occured in a vacuum? 9/11 was a consequence of our various foreign policy sins, including getting Bin Laden his start in Afghanistan against the Russians. Can you say “blow back?” I knew you could!

It’s nice to see that someone out there is cognizant of the term “blow back”.  I just am shocked that people like “Isthisthingon” still blindly bow to the altar of the anti-Christ Bush.  He is so opposite of Chrisitanity, it is deeply saddening to realize that most Americans bowing before him have no clue what Jesus even said.  If they did, he’d be out on his ass.

To go into Iran will only consolidate the bond between the Iraqi Shiites and the Shiite government in Iran.  We will only castrate and isolate ourselves further with an invasion.  Of course, Bush has already signed off on that as of October, 2004.  So I’ve just been watching the buildup since then.  Now the rhetoric will get really heavy, just like pre-war Iraq and Saddam.

The ridiculous thing is that the weapons inspections by the UN and the International Nuclear Agency (not the exact name, but I can’t remember it now) WERE working in Iraq.  We found exactly what Blix and other told us we’d find--nothing.  Now the Iranians are saying that they will offer complete transparency and allow 100% monitoring so they can have nuclear power for their country, but do you read that in the press?  No, they make it look shady and threatening.

I know Iran is not our friend and we do have to watch them closely, but who the hell are we to say they can’t have nuclear power even if we are allowed onsite permanently to monitor?  The American government and press are going to hide that piece of information from the public so Halliburton can continue to profiteer and Chevron can keep oil prices artificially high.

Susie Q--
What exactly are you refering to when you say you see people like “ISThisThingOn? who “still blindly bow to the altar of the anti-Christ Bush”.  I believe that we need to be vigilant about terrorists and the Left and others who want to destroy America.  That is a thought of mine long before Bush was elected. Bush is no conservative as far as I am concerned. And he certainly is not Christ like.  His only claim to my vote is that he is not an America-hater like the Democrats.  Now Pat Buchanan! THERE is a real American.  Ain’t bowing down to Bush at all.  Nor to Jesus either, as I am not religious in the least.  Christ was a sacrificial Lamb in order to be a martyr to the ancient Christian cause.  If the Democrats want to be sacrificed like Christ to their cause of a New World Order, thats fine.  The world is better off without em’.
But me?  I would rather defend my self and my family.  It is elementary survival my passivistic friend.

“And what will happen if Saudi Arabia decides to attack us again?”

Is this really fair? If 20 Canadians attacked the US, would that constitute Canada attacking us (and just for fun, whose side would you be on?)?

“If you kill a hundred thousand Iraqis then every single person in the country will have lost loved ones, or else know someone who died.”

True. Saddam and sanctions killed upwards of a million, so it is safe to say that virtually everyone in Iraq has suffered tremedously over the last decade or so. . .

One might wonder if the terrorists who are killing indiscrimately over there are weakening their base, given such arguments.

“What do you think the survivors will end up feeling, especially the orphans?”

Those who remember Saddam may feel relieved that he is gone. It probably depends on whether Iraq is reconstituted as a viable country or not.

“Will they love America, or will grow up despising America?”

A mixture. Do Americans love or hate Hillary Clinton? George Bush? Opinions can be quite diverse.

“I think its fair to say that a percentage of them will consider taking up arms against us eventually, in one way or another.  Wouldn’t you?”

It seems more likely i would be on the side that wanted to establish a representitive government. To build a stable country. But i am a pragmitist at heart.

“If America were invaded by another country, say China, and your family were shot or blown to bits, or otherwise killed in the chaos?”

If the US had been a brutal dictatorship, i think i would feel relieved and rescued. At least until my family was blown to bits. But if they were blown to bits due to the terrorists, my emotions would focus on them.

“Violence really does beget violence.”

Funny thing to say on this anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Japan. Violence apparently produced a lasting peace there.

“Bush has made the future of our country generally less safe, not more, while setting in motion events that have claimed the lives of more innocent people than Saddam or Bin Laden were able to kill combined.”

Let’s *hope* you are wrong. I also happen to think you may be, but only time will tell (and even then, ambiguity will remain).

“Bush and the neo-cons are guilty of murder and should be held accountable in a court of law.”

Yeah, so should most every president, especially the earlier ones. But hey, no one is perfect.

“There was no justification for the invasion of Iraq, not 9/11, not supposed weapons of mass destruction, not ‘regime change’, nothing.”

Just because you disagree with the reasons does not mean they do not exist. . .

“Iraq was not a threat to us, and in no shape or form was the killing of its citizens justified.  To think anything else is to indulge the morality of fascism.”

Damn. I am a facist if i believe this?

“Meanwhile Bin Laden goes free.  You need a bad guy after all, otherwise it would not be so easy for Bush to justify his laughable ‘War on Terror’. “

So Bin Laden being free is part of the conspiracy? (And here i thought the conspiracy waa to catch him in time for the elections, but i suppose Diebold made that unnecessary?)

Just a simple but naive question: Can someone believe that the war is ok and still be a moral and intelligent person? Or is it so clear that even a moron would “get it”?

I gotta take umbrage with “IsThisThingOn” saying that the Left wants to destroy America, seeing as I would consider myself leaning left-wards most of the time. I don’t want to destroy America. I don’t support terrorism. Now my beef with Bush AND Kerry is that their both bought and paid for by the monied interests. I’m not in favor of a government that lights its own fires and then tells the public that it is the only entity capable of fighting the fire while dousing that same said fire with gas even as they’re assuring us it is water they’re using. I don’t buy it. It reeks of profiteering. That’s why I’m not a proponent of unrestricted capitalism. Unrestricted capitalism gave rise to the robber barons of the late 19th century and I don’t think we need a reprise. Overall, I’m very suspicious of people who use labels because there are many Dems that I largely disagree with and many Republicans that I do agree with. I’ll gladly admit that I respect Pat Buchannan for sticking to his principals and not bowing to Bush. I agree with him that we should be more isolationist and focus on building up America, not tearing down Iraq. See, this is what makes people like Bush a divider. They use hyperbole and rhetoric to turn us against one another while at the same time justifying their rabid agendas. The last president we had that made me feel as bad as Bush does was LBJ. Manufacturing the Tonkin Gulf incident, escalating Vietnam, using taxpayers money on specious public projects which where really nothing than massive pork. Sound familiar? Well, it should because this Democrat gave Halliburton, Kellog, Brown and Root and company a big leg up with all OUR money. And for what? What did we get for all the money and blood spent in Vietnam? Nada. Zip. Zilch. We were told that we had to stop the red menace or other countries would fall. (Dominoe theory, hah!) So, when we finally pulled out, what happened? Well, since we aren;t writing this in Russian, I’d say that the threat was GREATLY exagerrated. Sound familiar? Oh, but I must have automatically liked him because he was a DEMOCRAT and labels matter, right? No my friend, actions are what count, not words…

Wolf, whatever.

Volvillain, thanks for the encouragement.

Isthisthingon, the left that do exist in this country do not hate America, or any other country for that matter, they simply dislike you, the average conservative.

Conservativism is a hateful little philosophy and is, as far as I can tell, anti-Christian, anti-human, anti-equality and anti-progress.  America is a beautiful place, but at the end of the day is just a piece of land.  Genuine liberals believe that people are basically good, and that when treated fairly they tend to act fairly.  We even believe conservatives were born good, but just like the Taliban or the Nazis to a greater or lesser degree a kind of anti-human sentiment creeps into their lives.  Some conservatives are entrenched, others can perhaps be saved, others still without thinking about it too much consider themselves conservatives even though when asked about each individual issue tend to come down on the side of liberals.

So no, we do no hate the piece of land that is America, and we have a lot of time for most of our fellow citizens.  It is the conservatives in this country who constantly project their own hate and fear on to liberals.  It is the conservatives who basically distrust other human beings.  It is the conservatives who believe the ends justify the means and if people get hurt along the way then that is the way it has to be.  They will talk about how their heart goes out for the dead in Iraq, but they would do it all again without a second thought.  All that matters to conservatives is themselves and their immediate social group.  The rest of America, and the rest of the world, can literally go to hell.

You are very much deluded if you think Liberals hate America, we just don’t consider innocent American lives to be any more important than innocent Iraqi lives, and that is what drives you mad isn’t it, that we refuse to play the game of neo-fascism.

Matilda--
Here is why I believe the Dems hate America.  I will quote YOU:

1) “America is a beautiful place, but at the end of the day is just a piece of land.”

2) “you think Liberals hate America, we just don’t consider innocent American lives to be any more important than innocent Iraqi lives”

3) Conservativism is a hateful little philosophy

4) (talking about conservatives): “Gee it must be great to have no conscience, to be totally unclouded by right and wrong, and for the murder of tens of thousands of people to be okay as long as it makes you ‘feel’ better.”

Let me tell you when I decided that the Left was an evil America needed to be free of:  When I was watching the 2000 Democratic Convention (The loser Gore was after the reigns of power in this one) When the opening ceremonies began, a large troop of young Boy Scouts were carrying in the American Flag in a Color Guard.  At that moment, those arrogant, elitist lefties that had invited these poor kids to be a part of the convention....actually BOOOED these young, happy children.  Yeah, I know WHY they were booed.  The Scouts had stuck to a policy of not allowing homosexuals into their Christian organization.  We won’t argue that issue here, but you jerks embarrased and hurt all these youngsters that had looked forward to participating in this process.  You morons BOOED them.  I never felt so bad for anyone before.  They were clearly crying, and the cameras cut away because it was such a humiliating and awfull event for these kids, and a black eye for the “party of inclusion”.  YOU morons BOOED those friggin Boy Scouts.  THAT, is when I saw the left for who and what they are.  I am a pro-choice, pro Gay rights conservative, but I also understand that others don’t feel the same way I do and I respect their point of view just as I expect them to respect (but not necessarliy agree with) MY point of view.
You, Matilda, and the scum that calls themselves “progressives” are just as fanatical and narrow minded as the terrorists and the right wing abortion bombers that you claim to be superior to.  Your leftist,passivist, self centered, morally relativistic points of view are as much of a religion as the Talibans points of view. You just aren’t self-aware enough to see that. In fact, since you and the Taliban and the Jihadists have the same enemies, (America) you ARE the same. I wouldn’t mind seeing you go down the drain of corrupt immorality that the Hollywood snobs seem to be headed down.

IsThisThingOn- Ouch! That hits a nerve! Now, I don’t want to seem like I’m getting too red around the gills, but the thrust of your argument, that dems are not always the nice, inclusive, touchy feely guys and gals they portray themselves as has some basis in truth.
Nobody is immune to acting like an inconsiderate jerk. Take our buddy Dubya, for example. Why not just diffuse the situation with Mrs. Sheehan and talk to her? Show some real courage and compassion, invite her in for tea, etc…
Anyway, I think people who talk about hating all liberals or all conservatives need to settle down a bit. Yeah, I’m passionate about my political views, but I draw the line at hate. I don’t like Dubya, and I certainly find myself angry with him a lot, but I don’t hate him. Hate is just so wasteful. I mean, will your hate of Dems blind you to anything good they might bring to the table? Will Matilda’s hate of conservatives blind her as well? All I know is that there is so much polarizing language on tv, on the radio, etc… that it seems like we’re forgetting that there are people on the receiving end of our spite. That’s why I try and be respectful of the person, even if I think their position on an issue is wrong. I don’t agree that the reprehensible conduct of the Dems towards the Boy Scouts casts all “progressives” in a bad light. To be honest, I don’t think the upper echelons of the Dem party are all that progressive anyway and many are spoiled blue bloods, just as the Bush version of conservatism, I don’t think is all that conservative. I mean, can you imagine Eisenhower signing the patriot act into law? I don’t think so…

Crying boy scouts or thousands of dead Iraq children, I know which one I think is the actual crime.  Jesus Christ listen to yourself.

Hey Matilda, I agree that there is HUGE difference between crying children and dead children. Maybe isthisthingon doesn’t know what’s going on over there. Well, a picture is worth a thousand words or so. Just be careful, because this site is graphic and I cried my eyes out. Seriously. All I could think of was imagining how I’d feel if my daughter died and how I wouldn’t wish that upon anyone. Even Ann Coulter.
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/

Volvillain, I think conservatism in one guise or other is responsible for all human conflict and most human suffering.  People who call themselves conservative are to a greater or lesser degree supporting a philosophical system that is in my opinion based on a complete misinterpretation of actual human nature.  I do not hate people who call themselves conservatives or align themselves with that worldview, but I am damn angry when they follow through on those beliefs to the point of cold blooded murder.

Volvillian, I looked at the sight you posted, and it occurred to me that how does all this carnage make a second 9/11 less likely?

By the way, my ‘Jesus Christ listen to yourself’ comment was directed at IsMyBrainOn.

Matilda, if 9/11 didn’t warrent a military response, then what does?  It was an act of war that killed 3,000 people.  You immediately jumped to the conclusion that because I posted that that I also think we should have invaded Iraq.  For the record, I was not in favor of the Iraq war, I actually thought it was a distraction from fighting terrorism.  I do think we were justified in invading Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda’s base, and destroying it.  If we hadn’t done that I think there is good reason to believe there would have been further devastating attacks on US soil.  I also question your figures on the amount of Iraqi deaths you say we’ve caused, and there is no evidence that all Iraqi’s are united against us in support of Al-Qaeda.  Most of the terrorists (insurgents, if you insist on being politically correct) fighting us are Sunni’s or foreign fighters coming in.

In a historical sense your thinking is off-base, we killed hundred’s of thousands of (actually, probably millions) of German and Japanese civilians during WWII and we weren’t plagued with German or Japanese suicide bombers after the end of the war.

BTW, what is your definition of conservatism?  Why do you think it is causing all conflict and suffering?  Lenin wasn’t conservative, Stalin wasn’t conservative, Hitler wasn’t conservative, Pol Pot wasn’t conservative, Mao Tse-Tung wasn’t conservative, collectively they were responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century.  Your statement makes no sense.

Matilda-I think I see what you’re getting at, but I’d like to clarify, if I may. Are you describing the authoritarian mindset when you mention conservative? Or a scarcity mentality, like there can only be so many winners in the world and I better damn well make sure I’m one of them, no matter what?
Oh and believe me, there was never any doubt in my mind that what we have done and are doing in Iraq will have grave consequences. It’s human nature really. I just have a hard time understanding how any one could think otherwise. Any one care to explain their perspective?

Volvillian, what is this fixation on Saudi attacking us?  I realize most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi’s but there is no real evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia had a hand in the planning.  There are many things about the Saudis I don’t like, but I don’t think they were directly responsible for 9/11.

The argument about “blow back” is way overdone.  Your definition is so huge that almost anything could be listed as “blow back”.  I think a fairly good argument could be made that we should have stayed out of WWI, and that the allies and the central powers would have come to a negotiated peace if we had done so.  Political conditions in Germany would have been very different and Adolf Hitler probably would never have become Chancellor of Germany.  Does that mean we should have stayed out of WWII and allowed Nazi Germany to dominate Europe?  After all, this was merely us reaping the consequences of our “sin” of intervening in WWI.  We had also cut off Japan’s oil supply six months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, so maybe that attack was also just “payback” for that foreign policy sin, and we should have sent Imperial Japan apologies for provoking them.

Chopper- Criminal fringe groups cannot really declare a war. It was stupid of us to elevate their act of mass murder to that status. That only served to give Al Qaeda more credibility in the muslim world. Instead we should have done snatch and grabs of top members like what the Israeli’s did with Eichman. Not collective punishment, which essentially the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are. Also, if we’re serious about lasting peace, we have to get serious with Israel. We have to stop giving them carte blanche when it comes to the peace process. Here’s a good read for ya on that topic.
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison08152005.html

Volvillian, I would say a conservative (and I’m not entirely satistifed with the word, it has been overused and abused, just as the word liberal has) is someone who believes that human nature doesn’t change much, traditions are there for a reason, (although we shouldn’t become slaves to tradition) and the government can’t solve all problems, and may make them worse by attempting to do so.  Also, life is inherently unsafe, none of us really knows as much as we think we do, and some people aren’t going to like you (or will actively hate you) no matter what you do.

As for the authoritarian mindset, that is at least as prevalent on the left as it is on the right, plus many people on the left in trying to create a heaven on earth instead create hells on earth (ie: see The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Mao Tse-Tung’s China, the list goes on).

Volvillian, I don’t see how snatch and grabs in Afghanistan would have worked.  I really don’t think we had any other options there.  Iraq is a different story, but now that we are there we can’t just pull out and leave it in chaos.

Saudi fixation? I don’t believe I’ve mentioned them, so I don’t see how you’re connecting me to any comments or allegations that their government was responsible. I don’t believe that the Saudi Arabian government had a hand in 9/11. They didn’t have anything to gain from it. In fact, we’re old buddies with the house of Saud. Go way back. I’d sooner believe the French had a hand in 9/11 then the Saudi government. (Now their citizens, well, different story...)
My definition of blow back is huge and vague? I think that the connection is pretty firm. Did we help provide material support to Al Qaeda during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, support that included teaching infiltration, clandestine operations, sabotage, guerrilla tactics etc..? I think you know that we did. It appears as though they were good students too, judging by their handywork.
Actually, the best thing that could have happened the end of WWI was if the US forced a fair settlement between the Allies and the Central Powers. We had the leverage with England and France being exhausted. Unforunately, the US congress made sure that we retreated into the shell of isolationism a bit prematurely and pretty much let England and France have thier way with Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire, thus, setting the stage for the sequel. God, Americans love sequels! See, you mention our witholding of oil from Japan as a catalyst, but you’re not doing the full disclosure thing. WHY did we decide to withold oil and scrap metal shipments from Japan? Because we’re mean people? No. It was China! We’d gotten fed up with Japan’s little adventure in China and Manchuria and thought that we might reign them in a little bit. (In hindsight, what do you think we’ll do to Venezuela if they decide to withold oil from us? hmmmm...) But that tactic backfired, (obviously) because, tada, Pearl Harbor. So, that was a nice little straw man that you built to torch in an effort to invalidate my argument, but did it work? Did anyone reading actually think that I held those opinions that you inferred were mine before consigning them to the flames? Before you attribute opinions to me, you might want to ASK what they are first! (You presume that I am anti-war through and through, but I undestand that sometimes one must fight, I just don’t think we’ve had to fight the fights we’ve fought for the past 30 or so years.)

Chopper- Here is where things get tricky. I don’t believe that government can solve every problem. In fact, the government that governs least, governs best in many ways. I think that there has to be a happy medium between government protection and free enterprise. Instead hat we have is pork fest every year at the legislature and Dubya there ladling out gravy. If you had a choice between spending taxpayer dollars on overseas missions vs. domestic security, what would you pick? Well, we’ve picked overseas adventures, adventures that are REALLY expensive in terms of human life, energy and money. Adventures that are LIKELY to create more chaos, death and destruction. If we pul out now things might get worse, or they might not. However, I think we lost the opportunity to effect a favorable outcome a long time ago, so why not get out? A lot of people didn;t want to exit Vietnam, because they thought a Red avalanche would follow. It didn’t. We were operating on the assumption that our communist enemies were united in their cause. They weren’t. Turns out that the Vietnamese were also afraid of Chinese interference. China was suspicious of the USSR. They weren’t one big happy family ready to pounce. Same thing in the middle east. All these Islamic countries have pretty complicated tribal and ethnic tensions. If we leave, they aren’t likely to follow us accross the ocean. Besides, that’s what the navy is for, right?
P.S. Senator Joe Lieberman and Ms. Feinsteinn are proof enough that authoritarians are amongst the left.

PPS: Well, the snatch and grab didn’t have a chance once our administration started blathering about Afghanistan and Al qaeda and blah, blah, blah. The element of surprise is essential and if we had real people in charge, people who weren’t spending all their waking moments trying to mint political capital, then we might have had a chance. I guess I don’t understand why doing things quietly is such a bad thing.

Volvillian, both you and Matilda mentioned the Saudis, perhaps Matilda made the more explicit accusation and you may have just mentioned them in passing (it’s getting late & I’m about ready to go to bed soon, I’ll re-read the posts tomorrow).  I’m also well aware of why we cut off oil and scrap metal to the Japanese (in fact I think we were right to do so), but it did precipitate their decision to attack us.  A war with Japan was probably inevitable at some point anyway.  We were also allied with the Soviet Union during WWII, in spite of that the cold war ensued afterwords.  More to your immediate point, we supplied weapons and training to insurgents fighting the Soviet Occupation, we didn’t supply Al Qaeda directly (I don’t think Al Qaeda even existed at the time).  Bin Laden happened to be one of the insurgents who benefitted.  Allies falling out among themselves after the end of a war is a very old story, Rome and Carthage were originally allies.

My point in all of this is that it is impossible to see all the ramifications of your actions, sometimes you have to go ahead and act anyway.  I still believe we were right at the time to assist the insurgents fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, just as we were right to ally with the Soviet Union during WWII in spite of the inevitable Cold War that followed.

IsThisThingOn,

If you think dems hate America, you are a mindless, Douche Limbag listening, Dildo-head, automaton.

You are just more proof that there are only 2 kinds of conservatives: (1) idiots, and (2) crooks.

All I meant by bringing up the Saudis is that if fifteen of the eighteen 9/11 hijackers had been North Korean than you had better believe we’d be in North Korea now.

Saudi Arabia was treated like a revered friend after 9/11 when fifteen of their citizens had just killed three thousand of ours.  For heavens sake THINK about that.  Doesn’t that seem weird to anyone, I mean really very inconsistent?

And what did Iraq have to do with 9/11, nothing.  In fact I think I’ll repeat that, nothing, not one single thing.  In fact Saddam was despised by the radical islamacists because under him Iraq was a secular state, not a Muslim one.  Bin laden himself vowed to kill Saddam, on video.  I guess we Americans saved him the trouble, and made it much easier for fundamentalist Muslims to take control of Iraq in the future.  America doesn’t really care if Iraq becomes a Muslim state, after all Saudi Arabia isn’t a shining star of freedom and democracy and yet there is no problem there as long as they keep playing the game.

What I am about to say next may sound totally incredible, and I know that. 

Both Bin Laden and Bush wanted very much to get rid of Saddam, and that is what has happened.  America and Saudi Arabia seem to be better friends than ever post 9/11, and Usama Bin Laden, we cannot forget, is Saudi Arabian.

(Does this even begin to look fishy to anyone other than me?)

Usama Bin Laden’s main problem with America is that it has military bases in Saudi Arabia.
Invading Iraq has opened up the possibility of permanent American air bases being stationed there instead of Saudi Arabia.  Once again Bin Laden may be on course to get the very thing he has been fighting for.  Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, and Bin Laden gave him one.  Bin Laden benefits, the Saudis benefit and America benefits.  And hey, what are three thousand lives to a government that would happily sacrifice a hundred thousand?

And, finally, if the Bush administration’s rhetoric about freedom and democracy actually meant anything then Saudi Arabia would have been one of the best places to start.  Sure the Saudis have made small token steps towards a democratic system, but this, it seems to me, is being done so as not to embarrass the Americans.

American neo-cons and the Saudi royal family are friends, that means they rub each others back, they look out for each other, they help each other.

Right now a little voice in most of your heads is going ‘they wouldn’t, that’s impossible’.  But it could be our very lack of imagination that is causing us to not be able to see our nose in front of our face, and be blind to one of the greatest crimes in history. 

I deeply hope that I am wrong, but anyone with eyes can see that something here just doesn’t add up.  Something could be going on behind the scenes here, the shear audacity of which guarantees it could never be taken seriously. 

Imagine it a different way, let’s take a totally fictional example.  What if the Mafia in this country were to infiltrate the White House, say it took them thirty years but they managed to do it?  The president was a real live crook.  How would we know, how would we really know if people who were willing to do and say ANYTHING found their way into office?

Okay, get on with it, I can see the conservatives in the audience getting warmed as I speak, ready to take everything I say literally, and show off their brain washed allegiances into the bargain.

I don’t know what all of this means exactly, but I do know that the official version of this story is a pile of crap.

So, ‘Bring it on”.

Matilda-
Your straw man choice between “Crying Boy Scouts” and “10,000 dead Iraqis” is a feint or “head fake” that is taught in most basic debate classes.  Neither of the two are related, but you stretch a point to try to make them related in order to show the foolishness of the opponent that you are debating.  The problem is, it must be done in such a way that is not so transparently nonesense in order to work.  You didn’t even try to make a case.  I illustrated my loathing for the Left with a trivial story. It was a watershed moment which showed me how the Left is anathema to American values.  How is that trivial story related to the deaths of 10,000 Iraqi’s?  You fail to illustrate the reader. It is an artifice that is used with begining debaters who don’t know any better.  Now,...if you can succesffully tie in the two, let me see how you make them a choice bweween the two, you might be given a grade above a “D” in debate class.  Otherwise, your “either-or” effort is weak and amaturish.
Your moral equivilance is showing. Which is fine, if you can rise above your seething impotent rage to explain your logic.  Oh wait, you’re a Lefty.  You don’t HAVE any.