[subego]

I was listening to NPR, and they had on one of the editors from Haaretz, which is one of the big english-language papers in Israel. Judging by what the editor said, I would say on the US scale of politics Haaretz would be considered liberal. The editor stressed their stance of taking a non-violent approach to things, and their consistent counsel of moderation with regards to the Palestinians.

This wind-up led to the pitch that Iran's nuclear ambitions is scaring the **** out of them.

The main point it seemed he wanted to address is that the problems Israel has with the Palestinians are separate from the Iranian nuclear threat. Though he didn't say it explicitly, the gist was "whatever injustices you think have been perpetrated against the Palestinians, do not overcompensate for this by cutting Iran slack on this issue."

Even less explicit, but I think an obvious implication since this was on American radio, is that we shouldn't overcompensate for our own foreign policy debacles in Iraq by cutting Iran slack.

Not only would I agree with this sentiment, I am painfully aware of this, often guilt based, tendency towards overcompensation.

Don't get me wrong. I feel enormous guilt over how badly we've screwed things up in Iraq. Frankly, if you don't feel guilty about it, I don't want you in my thread. Not because you won't have anything to contribute (which you won't), but because you are are a loathsome creature.

That being said, in geopolitical terms guilt is a luxury. One we cannot afford.

[Uncle Skeleton]

by cutting Iran slack

Like what?

[subego]

Letting them have a nuclear bomb.

[Sky Captain]

Hell, the "Palestinians" would just assume blow each other to hell first over the Israelis.

[marden]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2729584

Dec. 15, 2006

But a young captain serving in Iraq's violent Al Anbar Province has offered a simple explanation of what the problem was in Iraq and how to solve it. Among his observations is the importance of having a moustache in Iraq.

In a military known for its sleep-inducing, graphically dizzying PowerPoint presentations, the young captain's presentation, which has been unofficially circulating through the ranks, stands out. Using stick figures and simple language, it articulates the same goal as the president's in Iraq.

The creator of this PowerPoint presentation, "How to Win in Al Anbar," was Capt. Travis Patriquin.

But Patriquin will not see victory in Iraq. He was killed by the same improvised explosive device that killed Maj. Megan McClung of the Marine Corps last Wednesday.

Patriquin had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. A gifted officer, he spoke numerous languages, including Arabic.

"How to Win in Al Anbar" may not make it to the desk of the president, but maybe it should.

Click the Link Above for Patriquin's Presentation

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Don't get me wrong. I feel enormous guilt over how badly we've screwed things up in Iraq. Frankly, if you don't feel guilty about it, I don't want you in my thread. Not because you won't have anything to contribute (which you won't), but because you are are a loathsome creature.

What an idiotic thing to say. Why should (say) analogika (whose country had nothing to do with it) feel guilty over Iraq? Why should I (who didn't vote for any of the governments going into Iraq) feel guilty about it? Just because you're feeling guilty for some reason, don't expect everyone else to - you can only feel guilty for things which you cause.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What an idiotic thing to say. Why should (say) analogika (whose country had nothing to do with it) feel guilty over Iraq? Why should I (who didn't vote for any of the governments going into Iraq) feel guilty about it? Just because you're feeling guilty for some reason, don't expect everyone else to - you can only feel guilty for things which you cause.

Good post!

subego can't help it. That's just the liberal nature. As soon as they have a chance they start ordering people around and making everyone feel they should join together in a bout of collective guilt.

It's like their equivalent of group sex. It's sooo, sooo naughty but somehow it feels sooo, sooo right!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What an idiotic thing to say.

Are you so oblivious to context you can't surmise from statements like "on American radio", and "our own foreign policy" what I was talking about?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are you so oblivious to context you can't surmise from statements like "on American radio", and "our own foreign policy" what I was talking about?

Yes. Please put an "Americans only" sign up next time.

Oh, and if you didn't think in a manner which has you posting "we" (Americans) on an international notice board, you'd have a much clearer view of whatever it is you're mulling over in your brain. Think about that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

they have a chance they start ordering people around and making everyone feel they should join together in a bout of collective guilt.

Miss the point of the thread, did we?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes. Please put an "Americans only" sign up next time.

Oh, and if you didn't think in a manner which has you posting "we" (Americans) on an international notice board, you'd have a much clearer view of whatever it is you're mulling over in your brain. Think about that.

Maybe you could make use of the historic precedent set by the esteemed former poster here, the glorious Mr. Aberdeenwriter, who cautioned us about entangling Foreign Agents!

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...Foreign+Agents

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

Miss the point of the thread, did we?

I guess I did with all the flip-flopping and all.

Originally Posted by subego 

Even less explicit, but I think an obvious implication since this was on American radio, is that we shouldn't overcompensate for our own foreign policy debacles in Iraq by cutting Iran slack.

Not only would I agree with this sentiment, I am painfully aware of this, often guilt based, tendency towards overcompensation.

Don't get me wrong. I feel enormous guilt over how badly we've screwed things up in Iraq. Frankly, if you don't feel guilty about it, I don't want you in my thread. Not because you won't have anything to contribute (which you won't), but because you are are a loathsome creature.

That being said, in geopolitical terms guilt is a luxury. One we cannot afford.

So, let me borrow from the Bard...

To feel guilty or not to feel guilty? That is the question!

Since I don't feel guilty I guess that means I'll have to leave your thread. But maybe you could manage to send me on my way with some gefilte fish and matzoh ball soup?

I'm sorry. I feel guilty for even asking.

[Columbo]Oh, and one more thing...[/Columbo]

Iran will kick the living crap out of us if we wait long enough.

They DO have the wherewithal to do it.

And if THEY know we will attack the minute we get CONFIRMATION they have nukes then all they have to do is give us a FALSE indication of their nuke readiness (like we didn't know about Saddam's WMD's but to avoid the worst case scenario we had to go in) and let the world condemn us and the world will rise up against us and they can play the victim.

And then when the world is at war the 12th Imam can return and Allah will be dominant all over the Earth.

The End.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

I guess I did with all the flip-flopping and all.

Hmm... I suggest you read my posts backwards, you know, with the conclusion. You always get so hot and bothered by my exposition that you never have the stamina to make it all the way to the end.

And I certainly don't want you to leave my thread. You're not a loathsome creature, just very excitable.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

Hmm... I suggest you read my posts backwards, you know, with the conclusion. You always get so hot and bothered by my exposition that you never have the stamina to make it all the way to the end.

And I certainly don't want you to leave my thread. You're not a loathsome creature, just very excitable.

Stop being reasonable and conciliatory and intelligent!




I think it's the liberal in me. I admit I am half Fuzzy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Click the Link Above for Patriquin's Presentation

I almost forgot about this in all the commotion.

I have no idea what the relevance of this was to the topic, but hot damn! If anything deserves a thread all its own, it's this.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

I almost forgot about this in all the commotion.

I have no idea what the relevance of this was to the topic, but hot damn! If anything deserves a thread all its own, it's this.

You mentioned Iraq and that was enough fer me.

Yeah, I think so, too. Go for it.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

...you can only feel guilty for things which you cause.

While this should be true, it isn't! A lot of people feel guilty for things others have done (many Germans and Christians for example ) which proves that one can feel guilty for something he/she didn't cause!
Analog to that many people feel proud for something they didn't cause! It's the same idiocy (proud to be <nationality of your choice> for example)!

So, yeah, actually I (would like to) agree!

[red rocket]

Obviously, it is not in Israel's interest to admit to any link between their Palestinian problem and their Iranian problem.

Once Israel were to start talking about the Palestine situation in a broader, regional context, instead of treating it like a domestic issue, it would be opening itself up to all kinds of unpleasantries from all those people who view the Palestinian question as the root cause of the entire Middle East problem.

The suggestion that anyone is even considering cutting Iran slack on account of the situation with the Palestinians is largely absurd.

For one thing, if indeed Iran is primarily interested in developing a peaceful nuclear energy programme, it doesn't require anybody cutting it any slack, given that it's legally entitled to pursue one if it so wishes.

On the other hand, should Iran be in fact developing nuclear weapons, it is most likely that it will use them the way most other nations use them, that is as a passive deterrent against attack on its people and territory, as well as for economic leverage/blackmail. It certainly won't be deploying them against Israel, if only for the simple reason (never mind those Palestinians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank) that the inevitable counter-strike would wipe Iran itself out.

There isn't one question, there are two separate ones.

The first question is, "Should Iran, in the unlikely scenario of it actively developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of passive deterrence and/or economic leverage/political blackmail, be permitted to do so, even if there's a microscopic chance it might use them the way the US used them against Japan?"

The only reasonable answer is, "Yes."

The second question is, "Should this affect the way Israel treats the Palestinians?"

The only reasonable answer is, "No."

Guilt or overcompensation have nothing to do with these issues.

[subego]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Obviously, it is not in Israel's interest to admit to any link between their Palestinian problem and their Iranian problem.

Once Israel were to start talking about the Palestine situation in a broader, regional context, instead of treating it like a domestic issue, it would be opening itself up to all kinds of unpleasantries from all those people who view the Palestinian question as the root cause of the entire Middle East problem.

The suggestion that anyone is even considering cutting Iran slack on account of the situation with the Palestinians is largely absurd.

You say it's not in Israel's interest to admit the link between their Palestinian problem and their Iranian problem, you slam Israel for doing so, and then insist that anyone linking the Palestinian problem and the Iran problem is "absurd".

Pick one.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

For one thing, if indeed Iran is primarily interested in developing a peaceful nuclear energy programme, it doesn't require anybody cutting it any slack, given that it's legally entitled to pursue one if it so wishes.

Switch "primarily" with "solely" and we are in agreement.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

On the other hand, should Iran be in fact developing nuclear weapons, it is most likely that it will use them the way most other nations use them, that is as a passive deterrent against attack on its people and territory, as well as for economic leverage/blackmail. It certainly won't be deploying them against Israel, if only for the simple reason (never mind those Palestinians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank) that the inevitable counter-strike would wipe Iran itself out.

So, like, you think proliferation is a good thing?

Originally Posted by red rocket 

There isn't one question, there are two separate ones.

The first question is, "Should Iran, in the unlikely scenario of it actively developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of passive deterrence and/or economic leverage/political blackmail, be permitted to do so, even if there's a microscopic chance it might use them the way the US used them against Japan?"

The only reasonable answer is, "Yes."

Because?

Originally Posted by red rocket 

The second question is, "Should this affect the way Israel treats the Palestinians?"

The only reasonable answer is, "No."

I'll agree here as well. I think.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by subego

(1) You say it's not in Israel's interest to admit the link between their Palestinian problem and their Iranian problem, (2)you slam Israel for doing so, (3)and then insist that anyone linking the Palestinian problem and the Iran problem is "absurd".

Pick one.

(1) It isn't. (2)No, I didn't (because Israel didn't). (3 )I did not, I said that he suggestion that anyone is even considering cutting Iran slack on account of the situation with the Palestinians is largely absurd.

So, like, you think proliferation is a good thing?

No, just uncontrollable.

Because?

Microscopic chance. The rest, whilst not ideal, is pretty much accepted practice.

[subego]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

No, just uncontrollable.

How so?

In this particular instance, if I understand correctly, Iran is willing to let weapons inspectors crawl up their asses, but our current unwillingness to negotiate with them is putting a spike in the deal.

Regardless, how controllable something is dependent upon how much force you are willing to exert upon it.

Edit: if you want to cover the other points we have discussed in more detail, just say so. i'm not trying to dodge, I'm merely trying to push things to the heart of the matter.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by subego

How so?

In this particular instance, if I understand correctly, Iran is willing to let weapons inspectors crawl up their asses, but our current unwillingness to negotiate with them is putting a spike in the deal.

Iran's willingness to let in inspectors would seem to indicate that it actually does not pursue a nuclear weapons programme.

Regardless, how controllable something is dependent upon how much force you are willing to exert upon it.

If our understanding of this particular instance, as you have outlined it above, is accurate, there does not appear to be any logic in applying external force.

Let's recap:

1. Posit: Iran is developing a nuclear energy programme.
2. US and Israel threaten to attack Iran, claim Iran is developing nuclear weapons, despite lack of evidence.
3. Iran says, "Bring on the inspectors, we've just got a civil programme."
4. "No way, don't you fuck with us, you rogue state, you," say US and Israel.
5. Iran: "Not that crap again. Prove your claims, or STFU."
6. "Axis of Evil! Axis of Evil! This aggression will not stand!"
7. "Stupid American Satan!"
8. "Cease all nuclear activity, or else!"
9. "Or else what?"
10. "We'll nuke you."
11. "Oh." (Iran runs off to develop nuclear defense, about ten years too late.)
12. [more threats]
13. Profit?

Makes one wonder who the real Axis of Evil is.

Edit: if you want to cover the other points we have discussed in more detail, just say so. i'm not trying to dodge, I'm merely trying to push things to the heart of the matter.

The heart of the matter being, "Is Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons?"

Is it?

It certainly seems like the United States are doing their damnedest to convince the world that it is. Yet, at the same time, they seem singularly unwilling to let the matter be investigated properly, and are sabotaging any steps Iran makes towards peaceful negotiations. Why is that? Because they're afraid that if it turns out that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, they will have no excuse to attack it.

That's what I reckon.

[subego]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Iran's willingness to let in inspectors would seem to indicate that it actually does not pursue a nuclear weapons programme.

Agreed, which is why I think inspections would be good.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

If our understanding of this particular instance, as you have outlined it above, is accurate, there does not appear to be any logic in applying external force.

Force doesn't need to be military. There are many diplomatic avenues to be pursued.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Let's recap:

Again, I think you may have mistaken my use of the word force to mean a military solution. You use force in negotiations. You are using force when you threaten someone, even if it's only an economic threat.

While Haaretz discussed the possibility of military intervention, they made it very specific that this would be the final option, and, unlike other Israeli military ventures, this needs to be planned quietly, and not used as a club to beat their opponents into submission before a shot is fired.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Why is that? Because they're afraid that if it turns out that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, they will have no excuse to attack it.

That's what I reckon.

Well, if this is true, then that would be a very, very bad policy. I think the situation is a little more complicated than that. Both the US and Israeli armies have just gotten shellacked, so I don't think the political will needed to attack Iran will be forthcoming, unless Iran really pushes it.

Frankly, because of the aforementioned shellacking, I see Iran as more likely to push it.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by subego 

How so?

In this particular instance, if I understand correctly, Iran is willing to let weapons inspectors crawl up their asses, but our current unwillingness to negotiate with them is putting a spike in the deal.

Regardless, how controllable something is dependent upon how much force you are willing to exert upon it.

Edit: if you want to cover the other points we have discussed in more detail, just say so. i'm not trying to dodge, I'm merely trying to push things to the heart of the matter.

Actually, I'm not sure you and I understand what has taken place in the same way.

Iran has not really been happy to have weapons inspectors anywhere.

Iran took part in talks with France, the UK, and Germany. In those talks, Iran promised that they would abstain from development. Then they promised they would abstain from refinement and centrifuges. Then they went ahead and broke those promises.

Then Mohammed El-Baradei asked them to adhere to their promises, even as Iranian officials bragged on Iranian TV about having bought time with the talks to develop the technology further.

Then El-Baradei asked if, since they were doing it anyway, he could observe.

Then Iran asked for El-Baradei to fire the IAEA's chief inspector - and he did so.

All the while, America called Iran a part of the Axis of Evil once. Iran's elected leaders regularly call for Death to America and speak openly about bringing about the Death of Israel.

America hasn't chosen to deal with Iran diplomatically, in part because there's already a diplomatic process in place, the France-Germany-UK talks. Those countries regard those talks to be a failure. Remember Merkel's disgust at Ahmadinejad's 'love letter' talking about the common enemy they have in the Zionists.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Iran has not really been happy to have weapons inspectors anywhere.

Uhh... who's ever happy to have spies weapons inspectors?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

All the while, America called Iran a part of the Axis of Evil once. Iran's elected leaders regularly call for Death to America and speak openly about bringing about the Death of Israel.

Maybe people find us more believable.