The liberation of Iraq is justified for many reasons: Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, the need for a preemptive strategy before Saddam Hussein became an imminent threat, and the goal of regime change and democracy in Iraq. In addition, the Saddam Hussein regime failed to comply with numerous UN resolutions, including resolution #687 which was passed on April 3, 1991 and outlined the ceasefire conditions of the first Gulf War.
In October 2002, when the Congress authorized military action, there was bipartisan agreement on spreading democracy and regime change. The resolution authorizing military action stated: "it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Even the Clinton administration had correctly identified the need for democracy and regime change in Iraq, but this was primarily a verbal policy and barely put into effect. After 9/11, the importance of actually implementing a regime change and liberation of Iraq become more obvious than ever.
The liberation of Iraq is a central front in the war against terrorism, not a distraction from it. It is a war of necessity, not a war of choice, because we must deal with the root causes of terrorism, not merely its symptoms. The backwardness and oppression and lack of freedom in the Middle East are a breeding ground for terrorism.
The best way to attack terrorism at its roots is to spread freedom and democracy and modernity in the Middle East, breaking the bonds of oppression and exploitation that fuel a hateful ideology.
In that sense, Iraq is connected to 9/11, just as the entire Middle East is connected to 9/11. The oppression and lack of modernity in the Middle East, pervasive and powerful, is connected to 9/11 through a thousand threads of hatred, brutality, and propaganda. The oppression of the Muslim and Arab people by their own governments is truly the breeding ground for terrorism.
Posted by BerenForCongress at February 17, 2007 03:35 PM | Email ThisThey way I like to put it is that like with the weather, nay-sayers of fanatical Islam need only wait a day and it will change. Iran, and other fanatical Muslims will blow something else up, or create a massive terror attack that will only make the need to stop appeasing and denying more urgent.
Prudent folks recognize that a proactive stance towards Islamic violence just makes sense. Especially where violent Islam helpfully concentrates itself against us so we have a clear set of targets.
Cowering from Iraq will only create more heads for the hydra.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 17, 2007 04:42 PMWe don't know exactly what Iran is going to do, but we do know that their intent is not to just call the whole thing off and revert to a more open and peaceful society with more freedom and tolerance inwardly and outwardly. Their words, not ours. Do we just sit back and see how much they really intend to carry out their threats? Do we set a threshold for how many Americans, Israelis or their own people that they kill and then make a move?
Bin Laden specifically noted that if pushed hard enough, Americans will cower. Islam has decided that it will perpetrate violence specifically and indiscriminately to some end, and that we won't do much about it. Apparently you agree.
So, if you are not on board now, the only question is what level of violence you personally will have to feel or accept as the threshold for action? Dead relative? Friend? Specific death toll in one terror event? Nuclear event? Massive government caused death toll in a foreign country?
You make the bet. If you choose not to decide, that's still a choice.
It's a possibility, but personally, I don't think we'll quite get to that point. If we attack Iran, it will probably be just an air operation which will make the situation in Iraq more untenable (and in Iran, give Ahmadinejad more leverage in his attempts to build nukes). The Al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan will be dealt with after the world manages to regain some trust in American leadership.
Pakistan is aiding al-Qaeda somewhat now, and yet Pakistan is playing both sides of the fence with the US.
Out of necessity. Musharraf doesn't have the ability to take out the al-Qaeda elements in his country. His M.O. is to stay in power in a country that disagrees very strongly with U.S. foreign policy. That requires a lot of fence-sitting.
We don't know exactly what Iran is going to do, but we do know that their intent is not to just call the whole thing off and revert to a more open and peaceful society with more freedom and tolerance inwardly and outwardly.
But in 2003, we did know that their intent was to reconcile with the west. This is well-known (and please spare me the "liberal media" claptrap, I'm not interested). But the overtures were ignored, and the Iraq War led to a hard-liner (Ahmadinejad) taking over.
Their words, not ours.
And our doing. Iranian hardliners have based their support structure on the notion that America is an imperial power bent on subjugating the Muslim world. What kind of impact do you think the Iraq War had there?
Do we just sit back and see how much they really intend to carry out their threats?
Unfortunately, that's pretty much all we can do right now. And that's because we've managed to give the hard-liners the power they need. And if we bomb them, they'll have even more power to carry out their threats.
Do we set a threshold for how many Americans, Israelis or their own people that they kill and then make a move?
I think the rest of the world has a threshhold for when they'll help us. That's the threshhold that matters, because even if Iran attacked us tomorrow, it would be difficult for us to remove the regime by ourselves and stabilize the country.
Bin Laden specifically noted that if pushed hard enough, Americans will cower.
Who the fuck cares what Bin Laden thinks? The invasion of Afghanistan proved that this wasn't true. But the invasion of Iraq showed something else. It showed how easy it was for our leaders to use fear to get us to support an unnecessary war. That makes us look weak to the entire Muslim world.
Islam has decided that it will perpetrate violence specifically and indiscriminately to some end, and that we won't do much about it. Apparently you agree.
I completely disagree with your premise. Islam is a religion of 1 billion people, the overwhelming majority of which reject indiscriminate violence. There are definitely radical Muslims out there who promote violence, but the moderates of the region see them as troublemakers inviting problems. The key to winning the war on terror is to ally ourselves with the moderates so that we don't have to go bankrupt trying to police the entire world.
So, if you are not on board now, the only question is what level of violence you personally will have to feel or accept as the threshold for action? Dead relative? Friend? Specific death toll in one terror event? Nuclear event? Massive government caused death toll in a foreign country?
You can't possibly have a poorer understanding of the reality of the situation there. Everything we've done in the last 4 years in Iraq has made the likelihood of there being a terrorist attack here greater. I advocate for a withdrawal from Iraq precisely because I know that it's the best of a series of bad options when it comes to how best to protect this country.
You make the bet. If you choose not to decide, that's still a choice.
You keep gambling. I'll keep dealing with reality.
Posted by: thehim on February 20, 2007 09:34 AMthehim, are you Goldy posting anonymously and cowardly? Sudden use of profanity makes me think so. Does profanity make your argument stronger?
Bin Laden obviously had a good point, because it has proven true. There are many people in this country that believe in isolationism, or pseudo-isolation and really believe that we've reached some pinnacle of civilization where no nation or individual can act without the consensus of the rest of the world. That's a recipe for human atrocity. You look the other way on governments that have no respect for their people, because it's inconvenient and unpopular with the "world view."
And the problem is not Islam per say. True there are many Muslims who are non-violent. But if the leadership and spokesmen for Islam are calling Jihad and terror and preaching a daily diet of hatred, then Islam is a de-facto religion of violence. Imagine how horrified you would be if some Catholic priest, or worse, The Pope, started calling for Jihad and murder of unbelievers here in the US. And yet it happens every day in Islam, both in the Middle East, and in mosques in the UK and even here in the USA and it is dismissed as insignificant. A small percentage of a billion is all it takes to sow a lot of mayhem.
And as theocracies, Iran, Syria, etc. are fundamentally beholden to Sharia and to the Ayatollahs that preach the hatred and disseminate an organized call to violence from the top-down.
Until the Jihad is called off, it makes no difference where we are in the world, because no matter what we do, it will be used as an excuse for violence and Jihad. Go look it up, it's not our presence that they hate, it's our ideology. They don't like nudity, equality for women and homosexuals, or even the freedom of a person to choose who they love. Violent Attacks on women and indoctrination of children to Jihad is a common daily theme under Islam. Go read up on Jill Caroll's car ride while she was in captivity. No matter how much you try to downplay it, there is nothing even remotely close to the level of intolerance and disregard for the individual that is Islam, when compared to our Western world.
The key to winning the war is not to try and ally ourselves with billions, but instead to convince hundreds to stop their preaching of hatred and calls to violence. And that starts with top leadership in Iran and other regimes that do not recognize the individual as an end unto himself.
Leaving Iraq or refusing to address the core leadership of violent Islam will not end the violence. And conservatives are not the one's gambling. Conservatives are calling for some proactive measures to prevent future attacks. Some are definitely more effective than others, and that's a fine topic for debate. But on the Left, all we hear is that every US action is illegal and unwarranted. Odds are high that there will be more attacks, and there will be a greater need to confront the leadership of Islam. The left is essentially betting that there won't be anything else big enough to shake the middle of this country to the realization that retreat, and apologizing for our every effort to confront a radical ideology is no longer an option.
I don't know about you, but if history is any guide, then I think it's pretty likely that somewhere in that billion Muslims, there's someone crazy enough to ruin your argument, and a lot of other people's lives.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 20, 2007 11:48 AMNo, not at all. I didn't even come close to saying that.
And Arafat really wanted peace at Camp David and that's why he turned down an overly generous offer.
No. Arafat was a man who found instability beneficial. He was terrified of peace.
And Stalin and Hitler, they were just misunderstood.
They were leaders who had the ability to rally a nation to invade its neighbors. Ahmadinejad is not.
Are you one of those folks naive enough to take Saddam at his word?
No, but isn't it worth noting that part of the reason why so many people believed that Saddam had WMDs was because he told people he did in order to make them think it'd be dangerous to attack him? Who were the naive ones? The lesson is that you have to verify things rather than just listening to the words of madmen. I agree. We had a chance to do that in Iraq, but we trusted Saddam over the UN.
There has not bee a single credible attempt for leadership of Islam to reconcile with the West. Maybe some rhetoric at the UN, but the next day, they are back home speaking about the Great Satan in Arabic.
Leadership of Islam? Do you even know some of the basics of the religion? There isn't a heirarchy like the Catholic Church. There are Muslim leaders who are pro-West and there are others who are not. Just as there are Christian and Jewish leaders of varying degrees of tolerance.
thehim, are you Goldy posting anonymously and cowardly? Sudden use of profanity makes me think so. Does profanity make your argument stronger?
Haha, no. I know Goldy, but I'm a different person. My real name is a click away, just click the link below.
Bin Laden obviously had a good point, because it has proven true. There are many people in this country that believe in isolationism, or pseudo-isolation and really believe that we've reached some pinnacle of civilization where no nation or individual can act without the consensus of the rest of the world.
Well, part of that is what used to be called conservatism. In fact, Bush ran in 2000 criticizing Clinton for not being enough of an isolationist. But unilateralism is not the opposite of isolationism. It's what tends to happen when isolationists are forced to deal with the rest of the world. The cold hard reality is that in order to succeed in the things we're trying to do, we need the rest of the world on our side. Believing that the rest of the world doesn't matter is foolish.
That's a recipe for human atrocity. You look the other way on governments that have no respect for their people, because it's inconvenient and unpopular with the "world view."
That's a bizarre misreading of what happened with Iraq and what's happening with Iran. For starters, there are a number of governments that were (and still are) worse than the Baathist regime in Baghdad. And Iran is nowhere near as bad as North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, or even some other states we're allied with. That's not why we went to Iraq, and the rest of the world knew it. They didn't "look the other way," they saw the Bush Administration steering itself towards disaster and tried to influence our faulty thinking in any way they could. The fact that Iraq is now the disaster that all of those countries were warning about should at least get you some pause to begin to rethink your original assumptions.
And the problem is not Islam per say.
Thanks for clarifying.
True there are many Muslims who are non-violent. But if the leadership and spokesmen for Islam are calling Jihad and terror and preaching a daily diet of hatred, then Islam is a de-facto religion of violence.
But they're not. Only a small minority of the imams in the Muslim world are advocating violence.
Imagine how horrified you would be if some Catholic priest, or worse, The Pope, started calling for Jihad and murder of unbelievers here in the US.
There have been Catholic priests who have called for the murder of abortion doctors, but I don't consider Catholicism a religion of evil because of it.
And yet it happens every day in Islam, both in the Middle East, and in mosques in the UK and even here in the USA and it is dismissed as insignificant.
It is insignificant. There are Christians and Jews who preach hatred too, also insignificant in the overall view of the adherents to both of those faiths.
A small percentage of a billion is all it takes to sow a lot of mayhem.
Exactly, but it's not an excuse to impugn the entire religion. In fact, that's the best way to increase the numbers of those who want to sow mayhem.
And as theocracies, Iran, Syria, etc. are fundamentally beholden to Sharia and to the Ayatollahs that preach the hatred and disseminate an organized call to violence from the top-down.
Syria? No. They're not a theocracy like Iran.
Until the Jihad is called off, it makes no difference where we are in the world, because no matter what we do, it will be used as an excuse for violence and Jihad.
Until the Jihad is called off? Man, you really have no idea what you're talking about. For as long as religions exist, there will be people who become radicalized and believe they must kill the non-believers. The likelihood of that happening is not a function of the religion itself, but the culture of the area. An the culture of an area is greatly shaped by whether or not it has democratic institutions and a good justice system. Most of the Middle East does not.
The lesson of America is that by having a justice system that provides for freedom of religion, you develop a culture where radicalism is minimized. It's this model that many in the Middle East want, but it's a concept that the Bush Administration hasn't quite grasped. They've become convinced of quite the opposite. That our justice system is a liability in the war on terror, not an asset.
Go look it up, it's not our presence that they hate, it's our ideology. They don't like nudity, equality for women and homosexuals, or even the freedom of a person to choose who they love.
Neither do many American Christians. Are you saying that the jihadists are fighting for the same things as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?
Violent Attacks on women and indoctrination of children to Jihad is a common daily theme under Islam. Go read up on Jill Caroll's car ride while she was in captivity. No matter how much you try to downplay it, there is nothing even remotely close to the level of intolerance and disregard for the individual that is Islam, when compared to our Western world.
But that is not a function of their religion, it's a function of war. In parts of Africa, the same thing has been happening in predominantly Christian countries. It happens because war makes people desperate. Jewish settlers in Gaza actually tried to use their children as combatants to avoid having to evacuate last year.
The key to winning the war is not to try and ally ourselves with billions, but instead to convince hundreds to stop their preaching of hatred and calls to violence.
But doing the former is the easiest way to accomplish the latter.
And that starts with top leadership in Iran and other regimes that do not recognize the individual as an end unto himself.
Oh please, the American government can't even get that right. The realistic goal we should be shooting for is to promote autonomy and open societies so that people in the Muslim world can develop democratic institutions. It's true that the Bush Administration gets the big picture right in this respect, but they fail at how they go about doing it. And that's because they themselves don't recognize the individual as an end unto himself.
Leaving Iraq or refusing to address the core leadership of violent Islam will not end the violence.
That's correct, neither of those things will end the violence. But leaving Iraq will at least stop making it much, much, worse. Again, there are no good solutions to what we've gotten ourselves into Iraq, just a series of bad options.
And conservatives are not the one's gambling. Conservatives are calling for some proactive measures to prevent future attacks.
Well, for starters, attacking Iran is not a proactive measure; it's a huge, unwise gamble. And it will not prevent future terrorist attacks, it will more likely cause them.
Some are definitely more effective than others, and that's a fine topic for debate. But on the Left, all we hear is that every US action is illegal and unwarranted.
Unfortunately, just about everything we've done in the past 5 years has been either illegal or unwise. That's just the reality.
Odds are high that there will be more attacks, and there will be a greater need to confront the leadership of Islam.
There is no leadership. The anti-American movement in the Muslim world is not top-down, it's bottom-up. It results from growing numbers of disaffected youth who see America as an obstacle to their autonomy. Many recent terrorist incidents have involved youths who aren't even particularly religious.
The left is essentially betting that there won't be anything else big enough to shake the middle of this country to the realization that retreat, and apologizing for our every effort to confront a radical ideology is no longer an option.
No, we're trying to explain that confronting a radical ideology is not something you do only with bombs and guns. It's something you also have to do with diplomacy and alliances. The notion that Dick Cheney and others have that you can't negotiate with evil people is counterproductive. It makes us less safe. Ahmadinejad's routine is mostly an act, meant to convince the people of Iran that America is evil and just wants to subjugate them. Everything Dick Cheney and the neocons do plays right into his hand. It's the same routine Arafat pulled for years.
I don't know about you, but if history is any guide, then I think it's pretty likely that somewhere in that billion Muslims, there's someone crazy enough to ruin your argument, and a lot of other people's lives.
History is a guide, and what it tells us is that when we convince ourselves that the radicals are more numerous and more powerful than they really are, it helps them become even more numerous and powerful. The correct mindset is to deal with Islamic terrorism the same way we've defeated other enemies. We didn't need to torture people to defeat Hitler. We didn't need to use pre-emptive warfare to defeat the Soviets. There will always be crazy people like Bin Laden who want to destroy modernity. The worst way to fight those people is to convince more moderate folks that they might need someone like Bin Laden to defend them. But that's precisely what the Iraq War has done and what an attack on Iran would continue to do.
Posted by: thehim on February 20, 2007 03:21 PMBut a half wrong policy does not justify ignoring the governments of the Middle East that actively substitute religion for freedom, faith for reason, and sharia for secular law. As long as those governments are allowed to continue to support terror, there will be networks for laundering the funds and proding the necessary aid to continue terror.
It's absolutely and provably false to assert that there is a bottom-up uprising of ill will towards America as the basis for terror. Such a statement ignores the obviously entrenched government structure in most Middle Eastern countries both religious and bureaucratic that disseminate hatred and violence starting with very young children and continuing to adulthood. Saying that there is no leadership in the Muslim world, is simply false.
In other words, ask yourself where do Muslims get the idea that the appropriate response to America is jihad? If you grow up being told that violation of religious raw is grounds for violence and hatred, and that anything Western such as scantily clad females, freedom to choose faith or no faith and they type of faith or that homosexuality is not wrong, then you build a philosophy of intolerance. There is no vacuum of reality. People formulate ideas and philosophies based on the culture and education in which they are reared. I suppose next you are going to tell me that babies are born with Democrat or Republican DNA?
We must simply give the ultimatum to Iran, as a precursor to actual battle with Iran, and that we will not tolerate an active and government sponsored violent hatred of our Western ways. If Iran and other countries want to renounce Jihad, and dismantle their internal infrastructure that causes the indoctrination of their people, then they will be spared, otherwise, we have no choice but to go on the offense after many years of turning the other cheek and finding that our Western, Golden Rule, carries no value under Sharia is not acceptable as a gesture of diplomacy to the Middle East.
The deadline for the first diplomatic UN sanction and requirement for Iranian nuclear dismantling just passed. And we'll probably go through a similar charade as what happened with Saddam in Iraq. Each time this happens, the left whines as you do that this is merely an act, and that no display of force would ever really happen. But what if one time, the continued efforts at nuclear technology are successful in the Middle East, and one theocracy decides to carry out it's revelations toward the Jews?
That's the bet that the more hawkish in this country are not willing to take.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 23, 2007 12:22 PMWell, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but governments (even in the Middle East!) are made up of individuals, some of whom are moderate and some of whom are not.
Many of the governments in the Middle East are direct sponsors and supporters of terrorism.
Many? Not quite. Any definition of terrorism that you would use to reach that conclusion would also lead to the conclusion that most western countries also support terrorism. But by using the word "direct", you shouldn't be using the word "many". Beyond Iran and Syria, the list is pretty small. Indirectly? Sure, but the U.S. often "indirectly" supports terrorist groups when it suits our needs.
There is voluminous evidence of this fact.
I'm sure there is.
I will grant that it is inappropriate that the US has taken a double standard with governments in the Middle East, choosing to wear kid gloves with the Saudis and Pakistanis, while correctly pointing out the tyranny and dissemination of hatred and organized terror in Syria and Iran.
Well, what kind of impression do you think that has on the people of the Middle East and their opinion of whether or not America can be a fair arbiter?
But a half wrong policy does not justify ignoring the governments of the Middle East that actively substitute religion for freedom, faith for reason, and sharia for secular law.
I agree, and I'll reiterate again that I have no problem with the goal of bringing greater secular justice to the Middle East. My problem is with the way it's being done by the Bush Administration. And a big reason why they're failing at it is because they themselves substitute religion for freedom and faith for reason all the time.
As long as those governments are allowed to continue to support terror, there will be networks for laundering the funds and proding the necessary aid to continue terror.
No, you're putting the cart before the horse and you're also overstating the role that governments play in supporting terror. Terror funding works just like any other market and follows the laws of supply and demand just like anything else. Government money certainly plays a role in funding terrorism, but historically, most terrorism is funded privately. Al-Qaeda was funded mostly from the Bin Laden family fortune. A significant amount of funding for Palestinian terror groups comes from front organizations set up by private individuals. If America wants to fight terror, attacking the government sponsors addresses only a tiny piece of the puzzle, but as we've found in Iraq, increases the demand by private citizens to arm their ideological rivals and be more likely to tolerate that money being put towards terror tactics.
It's absolutely and provably false to assert that there is a bottom-up uprising of ill will towards America as the basis for terror.
It's not necessarily ill-will. It's a belief that America's intentions are to subjugate the Middle East. It's about autonomy moreso than about pure racism or religious fundamentalism. Terrorism results from a feeling of powerlessness.
Such a statement ignores the obviously entrenched government structure in most Middle Eastern countries both religious and bureaucratic that disseminate hatred and violence starting with very young children and continuing to adulthood.
And that's why it's important to understand the distinction I just made above. It's not about hatred, it's about a feeling of powerlessness. Middle East countries have deprived their citizens of basic rights that those of us in the western world have. This is why going into Iraq with the attitude that we have to adapt to their tactics (if they torture, we have to torture; if they cut off our heads, we cut off their heads; etc, etc). Indoctrinating racism has certainly been a tactic that Middle Eastern governments have used to deflect criticism. It's one of a series of mechanisms that have allowed for democracy to remain elusive. And as you know, America has certainly looked the other way on that front when it has served our larger geopolitical needs (especially during the Cold War). That, as much as anything, has contributed to the feelings of powerlessness in the face of U.S. interests.
Saying that there is no leadership in the Muslim world, is simply false.
I didn't say that. I said that there is no unified leadership structure for Islam. Not the same thing. Only some Middle East leaders portray themselves as religious leaders. Assad in Syria, Musharraf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt and Abdullah in Jordan are just some of the major leaders in that part of the world who aren't religious figures at all.
In other words, ask yourself where do Muslims get the idea that the appropriate response to America is jihad?
There are a few places. The predominant one is the Israeli-Palestinian situation. America has long been seen as biased towards Israel in that struggle and if there's a good example of powerlessness, it's the Palestinian territories. In Iran, it was support for the Shah's and his very vicious secret service that gave people the notion of America as being the "Great Satan". This view is quite unfair, as Iranians tend to believe in conspiracies over the reality here, but it still exists. But the fact that a generation has passed since 1979, the mythology of that time has worn off, and many younger Iranians are very pro-West. In fact, hardly any international terrorists are Iranians, even though their government is still one of the few who openly sponsor groups like Hezbollah. Currently, Iraq is giving a whole new generation of young people in that region the idea that jihad against America is an appropriate response.
If you grow up being told that violation of religious raw is grounds for violence and hatred, and that anything Western such as scantily clad females, freedom to choose faith or no faith and they type of faith or that homosexuality is not wrong, then you build a philosophy of intolerance.
Actually, Iran is a great example of how this is not true. Whether or not a government tries to impose theocratic law on its citizenry has little effect on whether or not terrorism will result. Iran, as I mentioned, has very few anti-American terrorists, but Egypt, a secular country, has produced quite a few, including Ayman Al-Zawahiri. There are several reasons for this. The main reason being that while Iran fell to an anti-American regime, the feeling of powerlessness against the U.S. subsided, while in Egypt, another pro-western regime remained, continuing to build the feelings of powerlessness against the U.S.-Israeli axis.
There is no vacuum of reality. People formulate ideas and philosophies based on the culture and education in which they are reared.
Absolutely.
I suppose next you are going to tell me that babies are born with Democrat or Republican DNA?
I'm tempted to go off on a long tangent her, but I'll stick with a simple no.
We must simply give the ultimatum to Iran, as a precursor to actual battle with Iran, and that we will not tolerate an active and government sponsored violent hatred of our Western ways.
Well whoop-dee-do! That sounds pretty nice, but it's meaningless. Ahmadinejad knows that if we initiate a war with them, he becomes more popular and gets closer to his goals. He's very unpopular among the Iranian populace. That makes it very easy to undermine him without resorting to war. He has little power in Iran's system of government (the mullahs still run the show), so he acts like a crazy tyrant hoping to get attention. He symbolizes how powerlessness leads to recklessness. And since the Bush Administration is falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
If Iran and other countries want to renounce Jihad, and dismantle their internal infrastructure that causes the indoctrination of their people, then they will be spared, otherwise, we have no choice but to go on the offense after many years of turning the other cheek and finding that our Western, Golden Rule, carries no value under Sharia is not acceptable as a gesture of diplomacy to the Middle East.
I don't think you quite understand. Ahmadinejad is trying to provoke us. It helps him to have America seen as the "Great Satan" of the past. By being belligerent with him and refusing to negotiate, we undermine the cause of the reformers, and build up his image as a tough guy. People in the Middle East look at someone who America won't sit down at the table with as someone who is strong, not someone who is weak. And when we aren't able to sit across the table and negotiate with people, it makes us look weak.
The deadline for the first diplomatic UN sanction and requirement for Iranian nuclear dismantling just passed.
I'm not surprised.
And we'll probably go through a similar charade as what happened with Saddam in Iraq.
Huh? When he was hiding the weapons that didn't exist from the inspectors?
Each time this happens, the left whines as you do that this is merely an act, and that no display of force would ever really happen.
Iran is still 5 years away from having a nuclear weapon. Where many of us are miscalculating is that we believe that the best strategy for keeping us safe is to try to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, rather than ensuring that 5 years from now, there will be a regime there that has no interest in obtaining one. The dirty little secret is that the latter is considerably easier (and the rationale for this is very similar to what our founding fathers understood in establishing the second amendment)
But what if one time, the continued efforts at nuclear technology are successful in the Middle East, and one theocracy decides to carry out it's revelations toward the Jews?
That's an interesting thought, but it's actually much more likely that if we invade Iran that it could trigger an overthrow in Pakistan by people who would consider nuking Israel and already have the weaponry. It's very important that we understand that Ahmadinejad's theocratic ranting is mostly show, similar to our own President's.
That's the bet that the more hawkish in this country are not willing to take.
Well, to be blunt, we've been listening to the more hawkish in this country for far too long, and they've gotten us into a gigantic mess. Maybe it's time we listening to people who are trying to approach the Middle East rationally and without a stream of urine running down our leg about the threats of WMDs.
Posted by: thehim on February 24, 2007 12:14 AM