…and this is a 
It's a beautiful day
Category: Politics
Posted on: March 18, 2006 10:08 AM, by PZ Myers
I slept in this morning, got up, had a bowl of oatmeal and a glass of orange juice, and read about the probability that we'll go to war with Iran.
I sat down in my easy chair and put my feet up and read that yesterday was the 38th anniversary of My Lai. As long as I'm looking at old atrocities, new atrocities are only a click away.
I sip some coffee while reading about yet more war drums in the distance, and my country's security plan.
The document ["America's National Security Strategy"], published yesterday, reasserts the right to pre-emptive strikes as a means of self-defence should the union deem itself liable to devastating attack by weapons of mass destruction. This reflects Washington's view of Iran as a threat not just to Israel and Iraq, but also to America itself, a perception inadequately understood on this side of the Atlantic.
The skies are clear here and the sun is shining, I think I'll put the computer away and go for a walk, do a little lab work and tidy up my office. No worries here…it's just another quiet Saturday. We're going to watch a play this evening.
Say, do you remember—I think it was only a few years ago—when we watched with horror and fascination as our military bombed Baghdad and our tanks rolled across the Iraq? We were assured our smart bombs would make this a clean war that would only help the Iraqi people, and our pundits crowed about our easy victory. I felt rage and pity, I was on the streets with a sign protesting, I wrote to my representatives and complained and cajoled and threatened. I howled in fury at the futile waste of lives and money, the jingoism, the injustice.
So today I'm going for a pleasant walk.
Does anyone care anymore?
Anyone?
This is how the monsters win, you know. They launch horror after horror, and as long as we have our electricity and orange juice and the quiet comforts of our homes, after a while we stop flinching, we just sit benumbed, we tell ourselves, "I'll rouse myself for the next really big one," and we remind ourselves that we couldn't stop the last war, so how can we be expected to stop the next one? We tell ourselves that the democratic way to stop this ongoing nightmare is to elect better leaders at the next election (always the next, it rarely seems to be this one), and then we vote for soft, rotten representatives who, with rare exceptions, simply surrender to the insanity.
So I'm going for a walk.
I'm a monster, too.
Comments
Sounds like just any other peacenick, 1939 vintage.
"Say, do you remember—I think it was only a few years ago—when we watched with horror and fascination as our military bombed Baghdad and our tanks rolled across the Iraq?"
Much better to watch with horror and fascination nuclear mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv?
Posted by: Roman Werpachowski | March 18, 2006 10:19 AM
By that logic, you should be sending me $50 right now, in case I drop a nuke a few years from now on your ass.
Posted by: FhnuZoag | March 18, 2006 10:35 AM
The worst of it, for me, is that I think we are likely to use nukes against Iran. I think the neocon cabal have long wanted to do this and have deliberately driven us to a position where:
o we have a policy of pre-emptive attack;
o the enemy is seen as having nukes (so we're "justified" in using our own);
o we don't have sufficient troops for a ground war;
o the targets are unreachable by conventional air attacks;
o the hype and urgency are built up to present this as an urgent necessity.
How can we stop it?
Posted by: Carl Manaster | March 18, 2006 10:36 AM
Or are the lives of others cheaper than $50?
Posted by: FhnuZoag | March 18, 2006 10:36 AM
The evidence shows it works quite well. No?
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | March 18, 2006 10:40 AM
Just something we've been saying for a long long time, but no one listens and labels us "tin-foil hat material".
Posted by: romunov | March 18, 2006 10:41 AM
you're a poet, PZ.
Posted by: djlactin | March 18, 2006 10:43 AM
Every preemptive war can be justified by appealing to WWII.
Unless of course, the comparison is an insane crock of shit.
Posted by: Ethan | March 18, 2006 10:43 AM
It's assholes like you, Mr Werpachowski, who have fueled our country's slow descent into militarism and oppression--who have harmed our reputation and endorsed criminal actions.
Iraq had no nuclear weapons. We have lost our standing in the community of nations to act with credibility against Iran; we're the big bully with lots of weapons, and now our only role is to bluster and kneecap other countries.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 18, 2006 10:43 AM
I hate to trot out an old chestnut, but unfortunately it's apropos.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Mighty oaks from tiny acorns grow, and the seeds of this problem were sown thirty years ago when the current voting population was "educated". We're far past the point of no return, here. It's still theoretically possible to fix things so that thirty years from now, we don't be so fundamentally messed up in the head, but no one is willing to take that steps that would require.
I suggest learning to live with it. The only alternative is not living with it.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 18, 2006 10:44 AM
Since Israel already has nuclear weapons, and Iran does not, I think it's Tehran which will have the mushroom cloud over it. I say we invade Israel.
Posted by: Frumious B. | March 18, 2006 10:58 AM
Just because the impacts from conventional weapons (biological or other of that style) need to cross two oceans to arrive to Americans doesn't mean it's the same with nukes.
Or else why are they so dangerous if they can only do local damage?
Posted by: cp | March 18, 2006 11:07 AM
Caledonian,
What, exactly, do you mean by all that?
Posted by: Jamie | March 18, 2006 11:39 AM
After the Holocaust, we asked how such a thing could have happened in a civilized country that produced a Goethe and a Beethoven?"
Now we know.
Posted by: June | March 18, 2006 12:02 PM
Couldn't be a complete post unless someone said Bush=Hitler.
Thanks, June.
Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | March 18, 2006 12:08 PM
The faux-moral voice of the comfortable upper Midwest isolationist. Where have I heard that before?
And how does that match up with the international angst of the same voice, in a different mode, complaining that money wasted on the Oscars could have been spent on -- oh, I don't know -- tube wells in Bangladesh.
Make up your mind.
Posted by: Harry Eagar | March 18, 2006 12:12 PM
People "care," but with a worldview like that expressed by Mr. Werpachowski above, caring can perhaps do more harm than good.
Posted by: "Q" the Enchanter | March 18, 2006 12:23 PM
Thanks, PZ, for your real-moral voice here.
Posted by: Jamie | March 18, 2006 12:26 PM
Excellent post PZ. As the phrase goes, for fascists to win, all it takes is for the good people to do nothing. And so they share a large part of the responsibility.
Of course, historically, ANY terrorism is justified, always, by appeal to self-defense. I recall Hitler justifying his aggression as "defense against jewish-bolshevick conspiracy".
And so it goes.
I think, rationally speaking, Iran can now claim, with much more justification, that it is under threat from the greatest military in the world, so it has a right for a preemptive nuclear strike against US. Its insane to think that, but its much more justified than the US case.
Posted by: tp | March 18, 2006 12:27 PM
This is not "how monsters win:" this is how scientists learn. What you learn (or should have learned...) is that holding signs does not work. Writing to your representatives does not work either. Being a scientist, what would you try next? Anything illegal would probably not work, either (that may have to do with it being illegal, but that is a discussion for another day).
Tell you one thing that you can do, it is still legal and it is the most effective thing a non-politically active, intellectually oriented person can do: EMIGRATE. Vote with your feet. Go and have your economic and intellectual output strengthen some other country.
You are not willing to do that, you are not willing to inconvenience yourself to support your convictions, then accept your apathy and move on. Don't pretend that you care.
Posted by: Anonymous Poster | March 18, 2006 12:34 PM
AP,
Do not drag science/ scientists into your inherently anti-democratic escapism. Democracy is dirty work. Skipping out is for libertarian hippies unwilling to grapple with responsibility. Cynicism is as damaging as neoconservatism.
Posted by: Jamie | March 18, 2006 12:41 PM
I'm quite pessimistic about this inasmuch as I see war as a natural human behavior that is never going away. Human beings have *always* been doing this-- going back as far as we have recorded history. Some of our close human relative primates have similar behaviors. 9/11 for example would be called "raiding" in the chimpanzee world.
I used to think otherwise, but then I watched a couple of religious nutcases fly airplanes into buildings on live TV and a bunch of other religious nutcases start beating the war drums and pounding their chests.
I think that one fallacy of peaceniks like you, PZ, is that you think that the majority of people in the world actually want peace, prosperity, and freedom. If that were the case, we would live in a very different world.
People don't want to be happy, per se.
What the majority of people want is one or more of the following:
1) To show off (sexual/dominance display?)
2) Power
3) Fulfillment of mystical/religious visions
4) To act out negative emotions
5) Excitement and drama (think about this one)
6) Heroes and good-vs-evil struggles
Watch movies, and think about how often we watch movies about peace and freedom and prosperity. Not often. Usually we watch movies about conflict, war, and other forms of *drama*.
The other thing that I realized as I watched the whole 9/11-War on Terror saga unfold is that they are us and we are them. They want the same thing that we want-- power, war, excitement, and fulfillment of delusional fantasies. Witness that nutjob over in Iran talking about the "Twelfth Imam" and other apocalytic lunacy, and then witness this:
http://www.raptureready.com/
The same thing is happening over there, too. They aren't any different. If they had the nukes and we didn't, they'd be launching preemptive strikes against us.
There are two things that I can think of to do. One is learn to live, and even prosper, with the world the way it is. The other is to think about, as one poster spoke of, what we can do that is *long term* to lay the foundations for something better.
Posted by: Adam Ierymenko | March 18, 2006 12:46 PM
Frumious B. wrote:
"Since Israel already has nuclear weapons, and Iran does not, I think it's Tehran which will have the mushroom cloud over it. I say we invade Israel."
In case you weren't kidding, there is a slight teensy weensy difference. No Prime Minister of Israel has ever called for the obliteration of a fellow nation. We Israelis have our sare of stupidity and callous disregard for human life, but compared to the current Iranian's president "Israel should be erased off the map", what you just wrote is bullshit...
Posted by: ParanoidMarvin | March 18, 2006 1:02 PM
PZ you have nothing to be ashamed of for Iraq becuase you did everything in your civilian power to say NO to it, and really it's the thought that counts. You spoke out against it, you did your job. Maybe you failed, but you still tried and you can sleep peacefully knowing that.
We can't quit on Iran so easily, by letting our administration invade another country without knowing our disapproval or really.. The president's war agenda has won.
I can't believe in two terms he's been in office, we've alreayd invaded 2 countries and the 3rd may be around the corner. How do we pay for it? We're already in a blackhole of debt.. our forces are already strained in Iraq.. 3 middle eastern countries, wouldn't we look good? Imagine if he did, Iran would undoubtely shut of oil supplies to us.. oh man, gasoline prices would double/triple initially.. could our economy support that? I only got one picture that sums up a dozen words from a few years ago..
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4499/howcan59054087peoplebesodumb3q.jpg
Posted by: Geral Corasjo | March 18, 2006 1:04 PM
Some of our close human relative primates have similar behaviors. 9/11 for example would be called "raiding" in the chimpanzee world.
Yeah, but the bonobos might have solved such a thing with sex instead. Your argument is unconvincing. The majority does want peace, prosperity, and freedom. But the majority does not call the shots. We certainly have the capacity for ill behavior, but we can be benevolent, too. I see no reason to think that the former urge is stronger than the latter.
Posted by: Jamie | March 18, 2006 1:05 PM
So where is the inconsitancy between being against war and being for humanitarian aid? Because it seems to me like the two tend to go together.
And where is the connection between anti-war and isolationism, we don't have to invade other countries at great loss of life all around to help and be involved internationally.
I call false-dichotomy
Posted by: Max | March 18, 2006 1:11 PM
I agree. I am so tired of hearing the airwaves polluted with one-liners, talking points, cliches, watchwords, slogans and catch-phrases. I'm tired of people seizing on the most trivial things that they can, and I'm really tired of hearing those same talking points issuing from my relatives... I don't understand how people can, not only regurgitate a bunch of half-assed, simplistic bullshit, but actually look self-satisfied when they do it.
I've started calling people on it... my relatives in particular. They'll puke up a right wing talking point, and the very first thing that leads off my response (which I always give in front of everyone) is, "Alright. You didn't think before you said that, did you?" And then I get as snyde as I can manage.
The sad part is, people don't care about how they think, they only care about how they look. That's why these moronic talking points spread like viruses, and that's why I've gotten more of my friends and relatives to start using their brains through my humiliation tactics than I have by trying to reason with them. They won't use their heads volunatrily, and the only way to get them to either start using their heads or, failing that, to get them to stop using their mouths is to make them look stupid in front of everyone.
I'm damn tired of it.
Posted by: Dustin | March 18, 2006 1:28 PM
Lord! save us from outrage fatigue!
D
Posted by: Dano | March 18, 2006 1:42 PM
From the latest Ivins editorial comes this quote:
Posted by: coturnix | March 18, 2006 1:44 PM
djlactin is right
Posted by: Reddy | March 18, 2006 1:59 PM
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face, forever.
Posted by: eponymagain | March 18, 2006 2:07 PM
Max, Professor Myers isn't against war, he's just for the other side.
It wasn't George Bush who launched a surprise attack on a peaceful nation.
Posted by: Harry Eagar | March 18, 2006 2:48 PM
You know, Harry, I've had about enough of your contemptible slander. Go somewhere else to piss.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 18, 2006 2:57 PM
PZ, I think of things like this fairly often. Thank you for voicing the point.
Harry Eager, I'm going to assume your post was just a bad joke.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 18, 2006 2:58 PM
Harry Meager:
And it wasn't Iraq either, dolt.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | March 18, 2006 3:07 PM
Does anyone here have a friend or relative in the medical profession? Often under Ba'athist rule, a doctor would be making his rounds when the police would bring in someone who had insulted the regime or deserted the army. The doctor would be instructed to remove one of the prisoner's ears. This was a sign in Iraq that someone was despised by the regime and it meant that virtually no one would every hire him, marry him or be caught dealing with him. An internal exile.
Forgetting the torture and murder this regime inflicted on the Iraqi people; forgetting the polls of Iraqi's that consistently tell us that the majority of Iraqi's feel the war was worth it and that the country is on the right track (polls which the media ignore or down play with polls of German and Vietnamese opinion on the war), think about those doctors. They stood there knowing that these policemen knew where their families were and where their friends were and they knew what would happen if they did not use their skills and training to mutilate another human being in a manner that would ruin his life.
Totalitarian states (real totalitarian states not the "fascist neo-cons" many here blather on about) make every citizen an accomplice. Bush isn't having your ears cut off or pouring melted plastic on people's flesh. You won't have to go to work tomorrow and choose between your sanity and your life.
Just saying is all.
Posted by: Apesnake | March 18, 2006 3:14 PM
You don't understand how people can regurgitate some inane talking points and look smug while they do so?
The answer is simple, but it has multiple segments. First, you're trying to understand what's going on as if there is a debate or intellectual exchange taking place. It's not, and there isn't. Second, you need to step back for a moment and try to look at what people are doing objectively, without bias or prejudice.
If you do this, I believe you'll come to the same conclusion I have: it's actually a kind of social combat. Rather like "debates" on Internet message boards, the point is not to present a logically cohesive collection of statements that lead to a conclusion, the point is to be catchy and exert social dominance. In some cases, the "debate" is really about interpersonal conflict resolution: people will try to defuse the situation by forwarding statements which on a superficial and emotional level reconcile the two positions. It's splitting the difference. If you're rude to the other person (no matter how stupid they were being) or dismiss their argument (which is really a peace gesture), onlookers will side with your opponent.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 18, 2006 3:18 PM
Bush: We're invading Iraq because they're hoarding WMD's.
Media: Iraq is hoarding WMD's. Liberals want us to fail.
(Time Passes, WMD's not found)
Media: We invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam's rule. Liberals want us to fail.
Apesnake: (eyes gloss over) We invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people.
Nope. In fact, I hear Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are top notch vacation spots. And extraordinary rendition isn't *really* torture. I like to think of it as more of a nice, all expenses paid trip to a scenic Egyptian prison for Arab satirists and writers who lampoon the United States. After all, electrocution isn't actually torture.
Posted by: Dustin | March 18, 2006 3:24 PM
"Harry Meager: It wasn't George Bush who launched a surprise attack on a peaceful nation.
Steviepinhead: And it wasn't Iraq either, dolt."
And it wasn't Afghanistan/Taliban/Osama/Whatever either.
Surprise attack? Yes. On a peaceful nation? um... well,
Posted by: craig | March 18, 2006 3:32 PM
People don't want to think through the evidence and reason their way to a conclusion. Conclusions are reached through a process of emotional association. Then people try to produce reasons to justify those conclusions, even if the "justification" is merely emotional. When they do, that's satisfying.
You cannot attack the conclusions by negating the reasons. The reasons have nothing to do with the conclusions. They're Just-So stories.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 18, 2006 3:34 PM
That isn't how it usually seems to go. Just the other day, I went over to a friend's house for dinner. One of the other people who showed up was a preacher from one of those strip mall chapels. For some reason, one of the college students mentioned something about restrictions on commercial atlantic salmon fishing on account of the fish population. Here's how the conversation went (not an exact quote):
Preacher: Let me tell you something: you're trying to wreck the lives of fishermen because you want to protect the salmon population. That's a typical liberal environementalist for you. You want to put animals before people.
Me: Alright. You didn't think about that before you opened your mouth, did you? If the atlantic salmon population is as bad as he says it is, and they're overfished, then there aren't going to be any left, are there? So the choice is, either overfish now, destroy the entire population, and leave all of the people who depend on the atlantic salmon for their livelyhood out of a job, permanently, or enforce restrictions now, allow the population to recover, and then resume fishing later. You're telling me that it's better to put people out of a job for the rest of their lives than it is to put them out of a job for one year.
I also put something in there about how absurd it was to think that there's some kind of leftist environmentalist conspiracy out there which is aiming to wreck lives for giggles. He didn't have anything to say to that, and just got pissed off. It wasn't dismissive. I'm not going to act all wishy-washy about these arguments when the general perception of the more sensible position is that it's for bleeding hearts and tree huggers. THAT would sway more people to the side of the opposition. I'm not going to walk on eggshells with these people, I'm not going to coddle them, and I'm not going to gently rebuke them. If they puke something up without thinking about it, and insult me in the process, I'm going to call them on it.
Posted by: Dustin | March 18, 2006 3:41 PM
"But the majority does not call the shots."
Yes they do. They vote for these guys, they support them, and they construct the intellectual reality that they inhabit. The elite are not some isolated subspecies. This isn't David Icke's silly universe and they are not shapeshifting reptiles from Draco. They are real people, and they grow up and are educated in the society that *we* create.
Again, watch movies. Do you see peace? Do you see prosperity? Do you see happiness? No, you see drama, war, superstition, insanity, delusion. We like this because it's entertaining. I also suspect that we like it for evolutionary-history reasons. I am somewhat skeptical of some of the specific conclusions and reasoning styles of the evo-psych people-- I think they are too eager to draw quick and simple conclusions-- but I think they're on the right track more or less.
I spoke of long-term things. Here are some long-term things that I think we can do:
1) Foster international trade. Trade makes aggressive war less likely, since you would now be attacking your customers and/or suppliers. Can China and the U.S. go to war? Not likely... it would *destroy* both countries' economies to even have a loss of normal relations, let alone a war. We could go to war with Iraq because they are not a big part of the economic food web. We can only beat up on people that we lack a rich trading relationship with, and so we must increase the size of that set.
2) Combat superstitious thinking. There is a strong correlation between superstition and violence. The most superstitious places in the world are also, with very few excceptions, the most violent (either internally or externally).
3) Fight, at a root-philosophical-level, Plato's "deception model of civilization." This ties in closely with point #2. There are *no* noble lies, ever. Civilization should be based upon transparency and cooperation, not on nested initiatory hierarchies of deception. This is a *huge* and very long-term philosophical project. The foundations of Platonic-style thought (which also has similar analogs outside the west) must be deconstructed, and superior alternatives proposed, at the base level of epistemology and "cognitive style."
4) Fight puritainism, sex-phobia, and affection-phobia. This is pretty self-explanatory. I view this as the emotional counterpart to the analytical/philosophical objective listed as #3.
5) Construct new technologies, especially those that are empowering to the individual. Technological growth does two things: 1) it keeps things changing so fast that authoritarians can't get a handle on anything and 2) it often empowers individuals to learn more, do more, and thus feeds into the next objective...
6) Fight for class mobility: eliminate "glass ceilings" and also fight against the construction of nobilities. Upward class mobility is important to bring new blood and new ideas into the upper class. Downward class mobility is important to filter out bad ideas. Bad ideas have negative productivity-destroying consequences. A fool and his money should be parted.
These are all things that must be done over the scale of generations. Don't get caught up in silly short-term things like Iraq or Bush. These are transient and are reflections of the current state of our society. We reap what we sow. 30 years ago we sowed the seeds of superstition and irrationalism and... we grew a Bush. :)
Posted by: Adam Ierymenko | March 18, 2006 3:42 PM
to craig:
there must, then, be a gene for well-aimed snark; it seems to run in your family.
Posted by: Jamie | March 18, 2006 3:44 PM
"It's assholes like you, Mr Werpachowski, who have fueled our country's slow descent into militarism and oppression--who have harmed our reputation and endorsed criminal actions."
Let's leave Iraq aside for a moment. Mr Myers, look up the info there is about Iran's nuclear program. It is very probable they are going to have nukes. WE CAN'T LET IT HAPPEN. Iran rejected even Russian initiative, and they were for years on very good terms with the Russians. Iranian presidents openly said he would like to see Israel destroyed. This man, and his puppet masters, the ayatollahs who really run this poor, enslaved nation -- they are dangerous. Once they get hold of nukes, they are untouchable. They must be stopped *before* they get them. Even if it means using military force. The risk is just too big. It's not now the US alone which sees the risk. It's Russia, Germany, UK and France too.
"Nope. In fact, I hear Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are top notch vacation spots. And extraordinary rendition isn't *really* torture. I like to think of it as more of a nice, all expenses paid trip to a scenic Egyptian prison for Arab satirists and writers who lampoon the United States. After all, electrocution isn't actually torture."
The US made many errors in the "war on terrors" and in Iraq and should be harshly criticized for them. However, claiming that this makes them equivalent to Iraq, Iran or even Hitler (!) is purely an insult to the victims of those tyrannies. Saying that making some errors (show me ONE country which did not make any such errors when it did have an opportunity to do them!) takes away the US right to defend itself and other countries against murderous regimes (who is financing Palestinian terrorism? Iran. Who is financing Iraq insurgency? Iran...) is pure idiocy. In the times of the Cold War there were such people who, more often than not honestly upset by the American human rights violations, claimed that the US is as bad a tyranny as the USSR and has no right to claim moral superiority. They were called "useful idiots". Their actions helped the communists to opress my nation and that's why I have no tolerance for such type of thinking.
Posted by: Roman Werpachowski | March 18, 2006 3:47 PM
Apesnake, Your information about the ears is typical of the propaganda put out by a country trying to rally its people to support an unjustified military action. If true so what?
Yes, Sadam did nasty things to people he did not like. So do Americans. Imprisoning people without limit or recourse to help, or the ability to defend themselves is also dehumanizing, as is what appears to be the fairly regular US use of torture, and then when heavier action is required Americans outsource the torture and call it rendition. In this we are all whores it is just a matter of how many customers we deal with and how nasty we get. Ears cut off is not nice, nor is death and injury from modern weapons.
"The Lancet, the world's leading medical journal, published an estimate that 98,000 Iraqis have died because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq"
Even if that is a bit of an exaggeration, that is a hell of a lot of harm.
The bottom line is America is not the world's policeman, and does not try to put things right where it sees harm. It invaded Iraq on the grounds of nuclear capability and threat because of links to terrorism. These turned out to be completely false. And if you do not think the leaders knew it, you may not have noted the recent information that came out that the Gulf of Tonkin, which led to heavy US involvement in Vietnam was also trumped up.
As for Iran, the idea of America invading is a joke. They do not have the capacity at this moment and after the last episode of crying 'wolf' I doubt even poodle Blair would back them. Much more likely they will go on a couple of bombing raids using smart bombs which will likely kill quite a lot of civilians and miss their targets.
And if we are really worried about nukes. what about North Vietnam?
Posted by: oldhippie | March 18, 2006 4:15 PM
That is correct. We should be trying to contain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Of course, what does the world see? The US has a huge supply of nuclear weapons, and a dominating military that can crush any regime, almost at whim. And we're ready to use that strength to flatten countries like Iraq, and now possibly, like Iran. We don't seem quite so willing to take on countries like North Korea or China.
What's the lesson here? The US will invade your country, wreck it, set its populace on one another. We're the bullies of the world. We back away from countries with nuclear weapons. Reverse the situation...imagine a Russia that hadn't collapsed, and developed a devastating weapon, and was rattling the saber at any country that defied its will...and what would we do? We already know. We'd do exactly what countries like Iran and who knows who else are trying to do: develop the weapons that would make the bully back off. And in such a situation, you'd be calling anyone who discouraged escalation a "useful idiot." If you were an Iranian right now, you'd be disparaging anyone who tried to do anything other than build up a bigger weapons program a "useful idiot".
Iraq is a disaster, a greater breeding ground for terrorism than before. We are overextended as it is, and going into Iran will ruin our country as well as theirs. And what next? Syria? Libya? You think the answer to terrorism is to demolish a few more countries, inspire a lot more hate and fear?
I won't call you a useful idiot. Your brand of advice isn't useful.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 18, 2006 4:17 PM
I am not 100% opposed to the overall concept of war against Iran, since they're being run by extremely anti-American religious fundamentalists who vocally support terrorists and seek nuclear weapons. However, I'm 110% opposed to going to war with Iran with Bushco in charge. If Kerry was at the helm, we would know that military action was justified and it would be managed well. There's no way to have either assurance under Bush.
If anything, the Iran situation calls for a Bill Clinton-style war: if they build something bad, blow it up, and otherwise stay the hell away. They'll learn.
Posted by: Troutnut | March 18, 2006 4:26 PM
That's exactly why I'm so upset with the state of things. Nuclear weapons are utterly perverse, and should be contained. But rather than genuinely trying to curtail their proliferation, we're botching everything. We shouldn't even be making Iran our top concern -- they don't have nuclear weapons. Pakistan does. If Musharraf is overthrown or assassinated, those nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists or extremists. We need to get Pakistan to disarm, and the only way to do that is to broker a mutual disarmament between India and Pakistan, and to offer them both incentives to disarm. What do we do instead? We GIVE India the rewards we usually reserve for disarming. We are encouraging nuclear proliferation.
As long as one country has nuclear weapons, their adversaries will think their own nuclear program is legitimate. As long as we sit on the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, nobody is going to take our talk of disarmament seriously. As long as we give away freebies to countries like India, nobody else is going to bite when we offer them incentives to disarm.
As far as destabilizing the Middle East goes, I'm starting to think our only goal is to make the Soviets look like amateurs.
Posted by: Dustin | March 18, 2006 4:26 PM
My intuition is that the anecdote you gave is an example of a social dominance competition, not a conflict resolution.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 18, 2006 4:40 PM
You'd rather I gave him a backrub?
Posted by: Dustin | March 18, 2006 4:41 PM
No. My point is that rudeness can work as a form of intimidation in social dominance situations. If a third party had intervened and mouthed some platitudes about how humans are the divinely-assigned stewards of nature, being rude to them would probably have caused onlookers to sympathesize with the priest and the third party, because the situation would have changed to a conflict resolution.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 18, 2006 4:58 PM
Paranoid Marvin: Pretty sure Frumious was being facetious...
You can't win by planning only for the future. You have to do things now, in order to win support, to build infrastructure. On days like the one PZ's had, I sometimes think it's too late - we've already given up defending our own freedoms, global warming is going to cause problems for the next fifty years (my entire lifetime, most likely) no matter what we do about it now, and plenty of other things that you all can add. And it might be true, it might be too late, but we have to fight it anyway, right now, with whatever we've got.
Posted by: chuko | March 18, 2006 5:05 PM
That wasn't even a possibility, since he'd already started talking about the impact on people. I would simply have reminded any third party that obliterating someone's trade because of that kind of irresponsibility is not good stewardship, and I'd probably have reminded them of any of the number of Bible verses which tell them to be good stewards.
I suppose you're probably right. I'm not out to resolve conflicts in an emotionally mature way that's satisfying to everyone involved. I'm out to shut down bad arguments. I'm not flagrantly insulting, but some of that social dominance can go a long way. I doubt very much that biology would be as sound as it is today if TH Huxley were more into conflict resolution than squelching creationist canards.
Posted by: Dustin | March 18, 2006 5:11 PM
If something happens between India and Pakistan, will China sit back and watch?
Posted by: cp | March 18, 2006 5:20 PM
Bro. PZ,
I do think it is time for you scientist to herald an upcoming Inquisition. It is time to hold scientists accountable for their "work" when and if that work is a harbinger of weapons of death.
Yes your fight in exposing fuzzy-minded Fundamentalist is needed, but the damage done by the fuzzy minded doesn't compare to the damage done by scientist who are willing servants to the highest bidder.
Rise up you the community of scientist!
Search your rants and expose those who fall prey to the lure of government money and fully equipped labs, yet they turn a blind eye to the eventual outcome of their labors. Cruise missiles and fighter jets and B2 bombers and nuclear weapons and a thousand other shameful inventions don't create themselves. The politicians don't create them. The theologians don't create them. The science professor doesn't create them, that is, unless said professor is linked to the military-industrial complex through grants and such.
Yes, we are all guilty. But without you scientist, we would still be flinging sticks and stones.
So I propose that all honorable scientist hammer out a declaration of ethics for all fellow scientists to abide by, and then shame those who ignore your call for accountability.
Your morning stroll is what all humans seek -- comfort. Nazi scientists were given labs and funding and this gave them great comfort, enough comfort for them to be blinded to all that their work created -- death. Holding picket signs is reserved for the powerless, not for you, you the mighty creators of moderity, the scientists.
Seeking to hold yourself and your fellow scientist accountable for their 'creations' is of global importance. The greed of a single scientist is far more dangerous than the greed of a thousand everyday saps, "our" greed is simply self destructive, "your" greed has profound consequences, the lives and deaths of countless.
So again, start your Inquisition before it is too late!
Shalom,
Bro. Bartleby
Posted by: Bro. Bartleby | March 18, 2006 6:30 PM
Sorry, I think I double posted there. I thought the first one did not go through but after posting again I see that my posts are being held for approval.
Posted by: Apesnake | March 18, 2006 6:31 PM
If so, that's too bad Roman, because right now--using your preferred technique of written commincations-- there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT BY OURSELVES. All we can do is try bombing them and that won't work. Thanks to your boy George, our military is busted, our budget is busted, and if we piss off the Shia, we lose Iraq and get a bunch of our own people killed. If you really thought Iran was a dire threat, you'd be jumping up and down demanding Cheney and Bush's head on a platter right now for blowiong half a trillion on Iraq and feeding our armed forces to the meat grinder for nothing.
Posted by: DarkSyde | March 18, 2006 6:41 PM
Hey--go find one of the many activities planned to mark the 3rd Annviersary of this horrible Iraq War:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=28
Posted by: vaughan | March 18, 2006 7:06 PM
So again, start your Inquisition before it is too late!
Nukes have been around since the '40s, a scientific inquisition will hardly stop them now.
And I wouldn't know what the main motivation of Iranian nuclear physicists is these days, but it's probably not greed.
Posted by: windy | March 18, 2006 7:06 PM
Bart, when you take the time to understand why it is that you are unable to stop some religious zealots from strapping homemade bombs to themselves and blowing up crowded busses, or why you can't stop them from flying airplanes into buildings, you'll understand why it isn't possible for scientists to prevent every instance of abuse in our own field.
Until you take the time to understand that, don't try to pass this off as a failing on the part of scientists.
Posted by: Dustin | March 18, 2006 7:27 PM
Umm.. Bullshit. Iran isn't currently enforcing a no fly zone around America and being shot at or any of the other stuff Iraq was doing. Iran has been a threat for a very long time, but its government has for the most part just blustered, until now. Now they are bragging about running parallel nuke programs, while in the process of negotiating for non-weapon technology and many other insane things, including strengthening ties with Syria, when every damn one of these things are "exactly" what will start a new war.
It would be like if Bush, having invaded Iraq, decided the next morning that Australia was going to be the next target. There actions make no @$@#$# sense, except they have flat out stated that they *expect* to see other Arab nations do the same thing that Iran has been doing in Iraq. The US invades, the Iran government disappears into the wood work, like Saddam "tried" to, lots of Arabs get pissed off, start an external insurgency, which unlike Iraq is more in line with the local ones, eventually the US gets driven out, Iran's government comes back stronger than before, the UN refuses to touch them because of all the horror, blah, blah, blah... This is *there* plan. They have stated it, bragged about it, etc. The way they figure it, the more of their own people that die in any invasion, the better the result. Worse, *not* doing anything also plays into their hands, because they can then bluster and babble about how powerless the west and all those Jews are. Its win-win for them, and they not only don't care how many non-ruling party die in the process, they plan for them to die in massive numbers.
Meanwhile, Russia and China are, for some incomprehensible reason, refusing the "safe" attempt to provide non-weapon power to Iran, which the US is actually trying to organize instead, with proper inspections *and* they are ignoring the existence of the recently bragged about second path to nukes that Iran is supposedly working on. So, as usual, even when the US is trying to defuse the situation and find an alternative, our supposed allies are screwing us over for their own political gains. And when it all blows up in everyone's collective faces, guess who is going to get blaimed for it...
Frankly, I am tired of hearing the one sided, "everything I hear from my side must be 100% true", nonsense from "both" sides. The world is always more complicated than that, but one side seems to think its 100% black and white, "we did the right thing", and the other side seems to think its 100% black and white, "its all wrong and we should do nothing." Both are simplistic, overly selective in what they reject out of hand and both **wrong**. And the worse thing is, all I hear from both sides is complaints about what is being screwed up by the other side, and absolute shit for solutions that are not equally simplistic, short sighted, based on incomplete information and useless, when they give any solutions at all. The only thing worse than trying to run a war by commitee is running one where the commitee consists of millions of people with 10% of the information they need, telling the 10% that have all the facts that they are running things wrong, some alternate solution is necessary, but not **how** to impliment any of them.
Sure, we need to do all the hearts and minds stuff. Two problems - 1) the real enemy is much better at convincing these people to hate us than we are likely to ever be at convincing them otherwise. This is the same situation you get with atheism vs. the ignorant masses that are more confortable with a priest than a lab tech. 2) The ones that are not being "led" to hate us are *not* going to change their minds about us in this generation or maybe even in two, or three, etc., without major changes or a massive reality check about their own governments. This is like the conflict between evangelicals and atheists, only about 500 times worse. So... Knowing what we need to do, "How?", and more importantly, "How do we stop, prevent or just plain limit, the insanity, mass murder, Jihads, WMD programs, terrorist support, etc. in the mean time, while trying to figure that out?" I see the Right simply pretending it will all work out, and the left screaming that nothing will work, but we need to do "something", but jack that truely answers "either" of those questions. Well, except for the pie in the sky lunacy that is the mirror image reflection of the Right. I.e. Right - If we do something, it will all somehow work out, Left - If we do nothing, it will all somehow work out.
Yeah... I really think both of those are *briliant* solutions... :p
Posted by: Kagehi | March 18, 2006 7:32 PM
"Nukes have been around since the '40s, a scientific inquisition will hardly stop them now. And I wouldn't know what the main motivation of Iranian nuclear physicists is these days, but it's probably not greed."
Let me put Windy in the "So today I'm going for a pleasant walk" column.
I admit, in the monastery I'm a bit of a strange bird, any other brother reading what scientist are talking about? I think not, except for the brothers having fun at the Vatican observatory in Arizona. Nothing like star gazing!
Okay, the past few weeks I've been reading blogs penned by scientist, and over and over again when a question arises that begs for discernment of ethics, instead I read of the joy of lab work, and if only that nasty outside world would quit bothering us, and let us have fun discovering stuff, then a happy camper I would be. It seems the labs are inhabited by myopic folks keeping their focus on micro matters of "their interest" ... and a happy lot they are. And if one is an atheist to boot, then one is "free" of all that "whatever" ... free to do science, free to care, or not to care.
So, nukes been around since the '40s ... alas, too late to do anything now. Well, I say, follow the money! Expose your labs to the light of day! Expose ALL labs to the light of day! The power you folks hold is a power you know not! Seize your power and Washington will quiver in their wingtips!
Let go of your fragile egos and UNITE! Unite the scientist of the world.
Gads, you ridicule Jesus, yet he was ballsier than any of your folks.
Shalom,
Bro. Bartleby
Posted by: Bro. Bartleby | March 18, 2006 7:33 PM
After reading this whole discussion, I have a couple of questions for everyone who has expressed opposition to action against Iran:
First question: why do you oppose action against Iran? Is it because:
a) you trust the Iranian government when it says it only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes?
b) you trust the Iranian government to take a "no first use of nukes" policy, once they have nukes?
c) you think the Iranian government can be deterred from using nukes, or giving nukes to the terrorist groups they support, by the threat of a US nuclear counterstrike?
d) you think the US has no right to attack Iran under any circumstances, even if it's in answer to an attack on the US using an Iranian-built nuclear weapon?\
e) some other reason that doesn't boil down to one of the above?
Second question: how would you react to documents that indicate (not prove, mind you, just indicate) that the American intelligence agencies fell victim to a well-organized campaign of deception by Saddam Hussein, intended to convince his enemies foreign and domestic that he did have WMDs when in fact he didn't?
Posted by: wolfwalker | March 18, 2006 7:56 PM
Posted by: SEF | March 18, 2006 8:13 PM
Actually, I find it far more likely that Israel will do what needs to be done in Iran. Europe will bitch about it while they secretly breathe a sigh of relief, just as they did when Israel blew up the reactor that France had sold to Saddam Hussein. Americans will be evenly split on the question of whether Israel is entitled to act to prevent their anihilation by a pack of theocratic head-choppers, and war with Israel will be the impetus for the Iranian people to overthrow their fascist rulers.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | March 18, 2006 8:37 PM
Wolfwalker, there are several distinct answers.
1. I oppose all action on every front by the Bush administration because they can't do anything well except enrich the coffers of their buddies. Not peace, not war, not justice, not domestic tranquility, not anything. I prefer them to be as inactive as possible, without regard to the issue at hand, because inaction now and addressing later beats also having to repair the Bush administration's harm to whatever it is.
2. I'm not convinced by any of the claims for immediate threat from Iran. I'll be willign to consider this when it comes from people who either were correct abotu Iraq or can sensibly and decently explain their errors and what they've done to correct the bad methods and logic they used last time.
3. I don't see that Iran's government is actually any crazier than several that do for sure have nukes, including not just our own but Russia's, India's, and Pakistan's. Evidence suggests that even crazy people can refrain from using nukes, particularly when a major reason to have them is simply to deter US attack.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | March 18, 2006 9:10 PM
Wolfwalker, I oppose action against Iran because I've been watching the guys in charge of your country and mine puffing themselves up in a remarkably similar way to the way they did before the action against Iraq. That worked out so badly that I don't trust them not to be lying to themselves and us again, and I don't trust them not to make an even bigger cluster-fuck than Iraq.
Posted by: NelC | March 18, 2006 9:22 PM
Wolfwaker: I choose e.
I oppose action in Iran because the outcome I consider far and away the most likely outcome is for any such action to hurt the United States far more than it helps.
Plus, y'know, it'll kill people - which in and of itself is not an absolute restriction, but argues very clearly that it's an action that should be avoided if possible.
And I do think that right now, it is possible.
Marvin: If Iran started a war with Israel, do you think Israel would be justified in responding with nuclear weaponry? What if Israel was