…and this is a 
We are children of the Cold War, and we learned nothing
Category: Politics
Posted on: April 9, 2006 8:25 AM, by PZ Myers
Everyone has read Seymour Hersh's exposé of our government's plan for Iran by now, I'm sure, and today there is an article in the Washington Post backing it up. Our leader is pushing for a fast strike to cripple Iranian military capabilities.
The rationale is that the Iranians are followers of an "apocalyptic" religion who "believe that they are stronger than ever" and think, "To hell with the [other side]. You can do as much as you like." Their leader is erratic and dogmatically hostile to Israel, and is compared to Hitler. There's a real risk that they would use nuclear weapons to blow up a country they don't like.
On our side, we have a government supported by fundamentalist Christians who anticipate the rapture and an apocalyptic war in the Middle East, who are quite pleased with the fact that they are the sole world superpower, and think that they can now unilaterally project that power wherever they want. Our leader is called "messianic" and believes his legacy will be the "saving Iran," by which he means bombing the heck out of it. We're planning to use nukes to blow up a country we don't like.
I agree that Ahmadinejad of Iran is a dangerous lunatic who says stupid things and is a threat to Israel. I do not want any war in the Middle East; I want the people of Israel to be able to live in peace.
But it's also clear that Bush of America is a dangerous lunatic who says stupid things and is an even greater threat to other countries in the region. When I say I don't want war in the Middle East, that includes pre-emptive strikes that would kill huge numbers of innocents, shatter and destabilize yet another country, and inflame the hatred against my country, as well as against Israel. But our administration is making serious plans to do just that.
Those plans involve bombing at least 400 sites to take out their nuclear potential, and many more if they decide they might as well take a swipe at their conventional sources and infrastructure while they're doing it. A key site at Natanz is so well protected that a nuclear bomb would be required to take it out.
It's insane.
He [a former senior intelligence official] went on, "Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we're talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don't have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out"—remove the nuclear option—"they're shouted down."
I've written to my representatives, but I doubt anything will happen; we have a madman running the country, and the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place are failing—there is no opposition. There are only benchwarmers in congress, people collecting their paychecks and their graft and calculating what they need to do to keep their seats. There are no leaders.
The House member said that no one in the meetings "is really objecting" to the talk of war. "The people they're briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?" (Iran is building facilities underground.) "There's no pressure from Congress" not to take military action, the House member added. "The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it." Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, "The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision."
He and his advisors have political cunning, too—anyone care to bet that the most likely time for Bush to pull this monstrous stunt is sometime before the 2006 elections?
If he does this, we are all going to have blood on our hands, and we are all going to be paying the price for generations. The time to rip out that whole rotten cadre of scoundrels and incompetents at the top is now…but of course, we have no leadership, no one in Washington with the spine to fight.
We're screwed…and that's the big "we", the whole world.
Comments
I was living (as a foreign student attending CMU) in the US on 9/11 (and when Iraq was invaded in 2003, etc, etc.). Since then I have seen the slow trainwreck partially inside partially outside (I returned to Canada in Dec. 2003). Many times I have thought of what Americans and indeed everyone should do, and I come to no answers other than large scale civil disobedience and demonstrations, even larger than the antiwar protests already done. But I do not know how to organize such, etc. History tells us that the Vietnam war was not opposed by large segments of the elite of the population until the draft started being severe. I hope that this is not what it will take, but I don't know ...
What appalls me further is how this madness is further wrecking the US from within, too - the country is literally in debt collectively - this, the most affluent country the world has ever seen. When the US implodes (and I have suggested for a while that the insane division of power and wealth could not be sustained), I fear it will take a large portion of the rest of us with it. I am concerned for the welfare of all here. So, I end with an appeal to our neighbours to the south - please, please, do something.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | April 9, 2006 8:43 AM
C'mon, PZ, a little skepticism, please. If Seymour Hersh, the Oliver Stone of Journalism, says the sun rose this morning, it's a wise move to glance out an east-facing window to check. He has a 20 year record of getting things ludicrously wrong. I'm sure this latest Hersh effusion is the usual tissue of paranoid fantasy wrapped around a kernel of truth.
No doubt we have - I'm sure we have - contingency plans for military action against Iranian nukes. Bush would be irresponsible not to have. But the US is already militarily over taxed, there are viable alternative options still available, and there is no support at home or abroad for a military strike right now. Let's not try to out-insane the fundies.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | April 9, 2006 9:00 AM
I don't get the Cold War analogy. A Radical Islamist with a Nuke will most likely not engage in Cold War tactics. They do not think rationally.
How does an anti-War protest save the world? The argument that Arab nations should have nukes is the same argument as having crocodiles in your swimming pool.
I just don't get the far Left. You people are just as out to lunch about Islam as the Christian Right is out to lunch about science and evolution.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | April 9, 2006 9:13 AM
Mr. Harbison,
Could you just remind me of the times Seymour Hersh has been ludicrously wrong? I haven't followed his career all that carefully, and consequently I seem to remember only the times he's been right. (BTW, I'm not being sarcastic. I would really like to hear you recite chapter and verse on this.)
Ethan
Posted by: Ethan | April 9, 2006 9:16 AM
I don't get the Cold War analogy. A Radical Islamist with a Nuke will most likely not engage in Cold War tactics. They do not think rationally.
Those "radical Islamist" mullahs in Iran (the ones with the real power not the nutso president) are fat cats who have been engorging themselves at the trough of power for the past quarter century. While their nuclear ambitions are real--the bomb is the ultimate political status symbol these days--I very much doubt they want to throw away their luxurious lifestyle by using it first and starting a war that can only lead to their annihilation.
Posted by: tacitus | April 9, 2006 9:28 AM
The Atheist Jew helpfully reminds us that Islam is just bad stuff. Thanks, AJ. But that's not a helpful approach. Like any faith-based system of belief, Islam is a superstition that causes some people to live in harmony with their neighbors and others to turn into murdering fanatics. The latter segment of Islam is certainly more newsworthy these days, but speaking in broad generalities discredits the vital effort of defending ourselves against terrorism by recasting it as a war against Islam. (Look again at what you said, AJ: "out to lunch about Islam", not "out to lunch about Islamic extremists". Were you just careless, or did you intend to indict all Muslims?)
On top of that we have the Bush administration, the most astonishingly dishonest and incompetent bunch of world wreckers in memory. They've screwed up everything they've touched with their clumsiness, even including the righteous attack on Osama bin Laden and his Taliban allies. There seems to be nothing bad in the world that Bush and company can't make worse. We actually have a president capable of thinking that carpet-bombing Iran with nukes might work out, in balance, in our favor. It's not like being an international pariah could hurt the U.S., now could it?
Posted by: Zeno | April 9, 2006 9:30 AM
It's stories like these that make non-US researchers never ever want to work in the USA.
Then there are unhelpful comments like those of the Atheist Jew about crazy fundamentalists that are nothing more than poor stereotypes which harks back to days when communists ate babies.
Totally agree with the first poster, watching this from outside the USA is like watching a slow train wreck happen and there is nothing we can do about it.
Posted by: LK | April 9, 2006 9:45 AM
The problem that gives me the most trouble is the one that we are seeing in Iraq now; we needn't go back as far as the Cold War. Despite all of the evils of the Saddam Hussein regime (me he rot in peace), the collapse of his regime has led to anomie, religious group fighting against religious group, Kurds left out in the cold again. Like Tito, Hussein was sitting on a powder keg and it was his weight which kept it from exploding.
When the U.S. "takes out" a regime, we have no idea what is going to fill the vacuum left behind and yet another country would get mired in a civil war. With no end in site, and Israel would be in even more danger. The regime in power in the U.S. had no idea what would happen in Iraq with the toppling of the Baathists, they have no thought regarding what will happen if the current onerous regime in Iran is toppled.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | April 9, 2006 9:48 AM
Seymour Hersh is not the Oliver Stone of journalism, unless you don't believe in Abu Ghraib and My Lai, two huge stories that he broke. I suppose it's a matter of opinion but his slant on the Bush Administration strikes me as pretty much on target, and I don't see any contradictory evidence that its future plans don't sound a lot like its past failures. He's no fool.
We're frogs in slowly boiling water. It shocked me that when I read Hersh's New Yorker article (to appear next week) that, wearily, for a few moments, I actually accepted the possibility that the Bush Admin might use nukes. Fortunately rational realization that indeed they might, and what might follow, made me outraged.
PZ calls them madmen. They are.
Posted by: Wayne | April 9, 2006 9:48 AM
It's the end of the world as we know it.
And we feel fine.
Sometimes I think REM really knew what they were talking about.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 9, 2006 9:52 AM
Gerard Harbison, if you've got some cites where Hersch screwed up, please list them. From what I've seen, Hersch is arguably the best investigative reporter in the country, and The New Yorker is notorious for having the most hard-assed fact-checkers in the business.
Moreover, the Bush administration is apparently gearing up US nuclear capabilities, and I can only think of two reasons for that: (a) Some deep-pocket Republican donor wants the pork; and (b) they plan to use them.
Plus, you can't exactly argue anymore that this administration could never be that reckless.
So yeah, I'm inclined to believe it.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 9, 2006 10:03 AM
For far too long, "peaceful protest" in American has meant objecting in ways that the authorities find unobjectionable. That lead straight to Free Speech Zones and protestors being held behind wire fences miles from the President.
Non-violence is good, but people are going to have to be a little more proactive in ensuring that their message is heard. Tens of thousands of protestors descending on a Presidential public appearance and refusing to be constrained within a FSZ is probably what it will take. People will end up being shot, of course.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 9, 2006 10:04 AM
Regarding Free Speech Zones: Back in the bad old waning days of the cold war (mid 1980s), our lab hosted a Soviet botanist for a few weeks. The two of us were touring the campus of the University of Georgia, and we neared Memorial Hall. He was drawn to a construction in the plaza - a wooden platform with the plaque "Free Speech Platform". He smiled, and I knew we were in trouble.
Posted by: Wayne | April 9, 2006 10:23 AM
It is unfortunate, but I can see here that you Far Lefties are completely out to lunch. I get the same feeling reading some of your comments as I do when I watch a Fundy state evolution is crap.
You dudes just aren't very rational. You offer no solutions but whine like babies about the people protecting your way of life.
Sad, very sad.
If you can't see that Islam (yes I said Islam) needs to be reformed so that humanity has a chance to survive then you are out of touch with reality. Open your eyes, you are supposed to be smarter than Fundies.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | April 9, 2006 10:23 AM
TAJ:
Here I thought we were talking about Iran. Iran is 3% Arab.Posted by: JP | April 9, 2006 10:38 AM
Atheist Jew, I don't see anyone in this thread arguing that Islamic fundamentalists are an OK bunch of guys. Nor do I see anyone expressing glee over Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons. Further I do not see anyone advocating that the U.S. not take some action on this possibility. What I do see is a whole bunch of people afraid that the Bush administration may be so stupid as to actually use nuclear weapons and thus ensure that almost the entirety of the middle-east hates the U.S., not to mention the minor fact of likely thousands of more deaths this would bring about. How is bombing Iran reforming Islam?
Posted by: tng | April 9, 2006 10:39 AM
The Atheist Jew won't address anything except in generalities, so he or she won't accept any replies that guess specifically at his or her motivations. He or she would rather sneer at the very legitimate concerns of others.
Nonetheless we can infer that he or she thinks it's perfectly ok to open Pandora's box and unleash nukes, without regard to what it says to North Korea, India, Pakistan, or any host of nuclear-armed nations.
The Atheist Jew would prefer that to negotiation.
Posted by: Wayne | April 9, 2006 10:40 AM
One can want to islam reformed without wanting to see islamic nations obliterated.
I'm going to check the links provided now and see what the reporters are actually saying. If possible I also want to check rumours I heard of Iran having agreed to inspections of their nuclear facilities. I certainly hope they have and intend to proceed acceptably... but I fear for the future.
Posted by: Aesmael | April 9, 2006 10:41 AM
You dudes just aren't very rational. You offer no solutions but whine like babies about the people protecting your way of life.
We use nukes in a preemptive strike and you can kiss our way of life goodbye. It's the act of a moral monster or a monstrously ignorant fool; that's what PZ means by having learned not a goddamn thing from thirty years of Cold War terror.
Posted by: Kip Manley | April 9, 2006 10:45 AM
Hey, Atheist Jew, do you have any evidence that anyone posting here is actually, you know, "far left"?
Just another lame attempt to hijack the discourse and re-frame the debate, by claiming that centrist and slightly left of centre views are "extreme", while extreme right-wing views are "mainstream".
I'm not playing that game.
Posted by: Graculus | April 9, 2006 10:48 AM
*to see islam reformed
Previewed and everything, consarnit.
Posted by: Aesmael | April 9, 2006 10:49 AM
Harbison, name the times Hersh has been wrong. Seems he's been corrrect far more times then he's been off base. He's no Oliver Stone of Journalism and your saying so is a pitifully weak form of arguement.
And what does being militarily overtaxed mean? It means we don't have the ground troops. It's not going to take a signficant part of our military to carry out a bombing based campaign.
If Bush want's to deal with Iran before he's out of office, the only way he'll be able to do that is with the options Hersh reports.
We should be alarmed.
Posted by: petewsh61 | April 9, 2006 10:51 AM
Athiest Jew, since when is nuking a country a means of reforming it? Please don't tell me their just targeting the bunkers with nukes when mass civilian deaths are inevitable.
Furthermore, Scott Ritter has reported that Iran is not anywhere near the ability to produce a bomb. They have only enough uranium hexafloride for testing the enrichment process, and the amount they need for producing bombs could not be provided by their own reactors. There domestic sourse is contaminated with an element that would make the centrifuges inoperable. An embargo would work in this case, as it was working in the case of Iraq.
And before you attack Ritter, he was dead on correct about Iraq.
You'd be willing to risk regional war, with its impact on the region's civilians, and to the global ecomony, because of a threat that is at least a decade away and could be dealt with by traditional diplomatic means? If so, that's really sad.
Posted by: petewsh61 | April 9, 2006 11:07 AM
Atheist Jew is an example of the bad, old kind of "conservatism". The kind where warrior cults are glorified, ancient instincts about creating lebensraum for one's own people by slaughtering others are resurrected, and social allegiances (of the ethnocentristic, culturocentristic, nationalistic, and religious sorts) determine what actions should be taken.
The more conflict there is, the more people hate and attack the alliegiances he's identified himself with, the happier he is -- because ultimately that creates a cultural pressure that reinforces those alliegiances. To have an in-group, there must be an out-group, and the greater the mental gap between the two is the more stable and resistant to change those groups become.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 9, 2006 11:13 AM
They do not think rationally.
This is wrong. They think rationally, they just base their logic on different premises. Given what their goals are, their actions make complete sense.
This goes for Bush, too.
Posted by: AoT | April 9, 2006 11:14 AM
Actually, the Bush-types DID learn from the cold war. They learned that they can use fear to get power, and that defense contracts are lucrative. That's the problem.
Posted by: craig | April 9, 2006 11:18 AM
Caledonian:
"To have an in-group, there must be an out-group, and the greater the mental gap between the two is the more stable and resistant to change those groups become."
Well said.
Posted by: JK | April 9, 2006 11:41 AM
"Everyone has read Seymour Hersh's exposé of our government's plan for Iran by now, I'm sure,..."
And this includes the Iranians. I reckon a lot of diplomats are very happy that this has been published: the Iranians won't want to be nuked, so it helps if they think that the US is ruled by a bunch of nutters who are seriously considering doing this.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | April 9, 2006 11:43 AM
Most of my brain tells me that this can't possibly be our planned course of action. Just more sabre rattling along the lines of what we were saying about Syria a couple of years ago.
But then, most of my brain told me that it was impossible for Al Gore to actually lose to George Freakin' Bush.
I don't know what's impossible anymore.
Posted by: jbark | April 9, 2006 11:45 AM
Perhaps we can arrange a screening of Dr Strangelove for our Congresspeople ...
And make them all read John Hersey's Hiroshima. It's a short book; even Republicans can read it.
Posted by: wheatdogg | April 9, 2006 11:57 AM
Of course nobody, especially the neauseating bigot Atheist Jew, mentions that only one country in the middle-east has nuclear weapons and the delivery system to send them anywhere in its neighborhood. Israeli nukes , people! They exist whether or not lying scumbag cocksuckers like Atheist Jew and Condi Rice maintain a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on them.
Gee, and I wonder why Iran wants nukes?
Posted by: Pastor Maker | April 9, 2006 12:10 PM
If you can't see that Islam (yes I said Islam) needs to be reformed so that humanity has a chance to survive then you are out of touch with reality. Open your eyes, you are supposed to be smarter than Fundies.
I agree with Atheist Jew, which is why I immediately tackle any woman wearing a headscarf whether it's at my place of employment, at the mall, or at the farmer's market, drag her by the neck to the nearest security officer, and demand that they immediately arrest her as a terrorist.
It's the fault of Islam that I keep being fired from jobs, banned from malls, and arrested for assault. Don't you people know that ISLAM IS DANGEROUS?!?!?!
Posted by: Mnemosyne | April 9, 2006 12:13 PM
On a slightly more serious note, anyone want to take bets on how long it will be before Atheist Jew goes all Barauch Goldstein on someone here in the U.S.?
Posted by: Mnemosyne | April 9, 2006 12:16 PM
More interesting reading material on this subject:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714
Posted by: michiel | April 9, 2006 12:25 PM
Iran cannot have nukes. Period.
Posted by: Roman Werpachowski | April 9, 2006 12:33 PM
Wow, I'm laughing at all the great minds here. You people are pathetic.
Where did I say Iran should be nuked?
And Pastor Maker, you are the most pathetic wimp coward I've seen on these boards in a long time.
You people are like Religious Fundies, who wouldn't believe evolution if they saw a fish give birth to a frog.
9/11 bombings, London bombings mean nothing to you. If there were another 50 terrorist attacks in the West you pansies would be holding hands singing Kumbaya.
Can anyone here think about what is going to happen if Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc get nukes. Can you picture the future, or do you "scientist" just observe the past.
What a bunch of dummies.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | April 9, 2006 12:39 PM
So... believing that the use of force is not necessarily the best way to solve problems, especially when such force would possibly result in the deaths of thousands of innocents makes us pansies? Well, just call me 'Petunia' then Mr. Hawk.
Posted by: tng | April 9, 2006 12:48 PM
I don't know about Islam, Iran, nukes, Israel, Christian fundamentalists, attacks, terrorism, freedom and all that, but some people still believe all is done to clear the route for the gas pipes and that, as always, religion is used for politics.
Posted by: cp | April 9, 2006 12:49 PM
Aetheist Jew,
If I saw a fish give birth to a frog, YES, I would certainly question the theory of evolution as we know it.
As for the terrorists hiding under our beds and slaughtering untold numbers of innocents, have you recently checked the body count in Iraq attributable to U.S. military action? Not to mention the deaths caused by the instability we've unleashed.
What would it actually take to make you feel safe?
Posted by: BrianT | April 9, 2006 12:53 PM
If I were a Muslim, I would be completely against preventing the Arab countries and Iran from getting nukes. It would be my dream.
But the thing is that I have no intention of watching the world turn into Muslims.
Pastor Maker, can I call you Achmed from now on, because if you aren't a Muslim Arab you should be. OBL would love you, especially when you give him his morning teabagging session.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | April 9, 2006 12:56 PM
Seeing a fish give birth to a frog is one of the things that would indeed cause me to reject evolution as a viable theory.
FWIW, I think Islam is one of the more pernicious and dangerous religions in the world. What puzzles me is that Atheist Jew seems to think falling in line behind Bush does anything about that. Consider, Afghanistan is [i]still[/i] an extremist Islamic state. It [i]still[/i] imprisons dissidents for blasphemy. It [i]still[/i] suppresses women's rights. It [i]still[/i] threatens and punishes apostates.
If the US had a plan to spread liberal values, that would be one thing. If the plan is simply to stand behind our own fundamentalist president as he traipses through the mideast like a bull in a china shop, forgive me some skepticism that that in fact will improve the future.
Posted by: Russell | April 9, 2006 12:59 PM
Hey Brian, how many terrorist attacks in the USA since 9/11?
As soon at the US invaded Iraq, Libya stopped their nuke program.
You can be a Dhimmi. You obviously can't think ahead.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | April 9, 2006 1:01 PM
Russell, I'm hardly a Bushbot. 9/11 changed everything though.
Rome wasn't built in a day. I don't expect reform to happen overnite.
As for my evolution joke. It was a joke, based on what Fundies say evolution is.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | April 9, 2006 1:08 PM
But the thing is that I have no intention of watching the world turn into Muslims.
Funny, I missed the part where mass conversions have been taking place. What country is that happening in again?
Just out of curiousity, is Islam a "disease" that's taking over? Do we need to "eradicate" the "disease" to protect ourselves?
Is your rhetoric starting to sound familiar, or do you really not see the parallel of demanding that a specific ethnic/religious group be completely eliminated for the "safety" of society?
Posted by: Mnemosyne | April 9, 2006 1:11 PM
Atheist Jew,
What's your point? How many terrorist attacks were there in the U.S. in the five years BEFORE 9/11?
Posted by: BrianT | April 9, 2006 1:12 PM
Hey Brian, how many terrorist attacks in the USA since 9/11?
How many were there between the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the second, more successful attack in 2001? Or are you one of those nutjobs who thinks Timothy McVeigh was innocent?
As soon at the US invaded Iraq, Libya stopped their nuke program.
Oh, sweetie. You really believe that? Talk about naive ....
Posted by: Mnemosyne | April 9, 2006 1:13 PM
If Iran isn't prevented from getting nukes, and they are working to get them, rest assured that they will use them. And if they use them, they themselves will go up in flames. Like this.
Posted by: Watcher | April 9, 2006 1:15 PM
What in the world IS an atheist jew, anyway? And do you lack understanding of Islam? Have you ever even READ the Koran? There's absolutely nothing wrong with Islam, and they were once the leading scientific minds on the planet - hardly the "backwards" or "dangerous" religion you seem to believe it is.
And how can you "hate Democrats" when you don't even know most of them, Mr Harbison?
You people need to go look in a mirror to see where the true dangers of the world lie. In arrogance and ignorance of others.
Posted by: donna | April 9, 2006 1:15 PM
Mine, you aren't too bright. Don't address me. Your logic is completely whacked, and you have no idea about reality.
Brian, just live your life out, but hopefully you will remain politically impotent.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | April 9, 2006 1:16 PM
TAJ
You say that we are irrational for "whining" about the people who protect our way of life, but I think that you are the one who is completely irrational, if you think that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran is going to protect our way of life. As many have pointed out here that will only create more antagonism against this country.
In addiction, you say that we should "reform" Islam (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), yet you seem to be advocating that reform by wiping them out. That's rational!! But since you took that stance, let's keep going along those lines and say that we also need to wipe out (sorry "reform") all fundamentalists. Let's see that would include a large part of the US, Isreal, etc. You can't have it just one way and still call yourself rational.
Posted by: Scott Little | April 9, 2006 1:17 PM
Donna, if you don't know what an Atheist Jew is, I suggest it is you that needs to be educated.
Go to my blog, and read the last post. And go to the video links I provide.
You need serious education.
You people are sadly in denial.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | April 9, 2006 1:19 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you all seem to believe that if somebody is against the US wars is anti-war in general even when they may accept a plausible explanation for a defensive war and if someone is christian american then should accept everything Bush says and those who disagree on some things with americans are anti-americans although they may agree on a billion other cultural and political things with that people and that if you are a scientist and an atheist then you are anti Bush by definition and not because Bush lacks diplomatic tact as far as his allies are concerned and that if you don't accept bombings that seem irrational to many HQ of other western countries for various strategic reasons you are supporter of the muslims=terrorists and that you pretend you don't see that some people don't feel safe in their christian democratic countries any more because they know that there is a military force out there who can strike at will for no apparent (to them ) reason and that force is the US, not the middle easterners.
Posted by: cp | April 9, 2006 1:23 PM
What in the world IS an atheist jew, anyway? And do you lack understanding of Islam? Have you ever even READ the Koran? There's absolutely nothing wrong with Islam, and they were once the leading scientific minds on the planet - hardly the "backwards" or "dangerous" religion you seem to believe it is.
And how can you "hate Democrats" when you don't even know most of them, Mr Harbison?
You people need to go look in a mirror to see where the true dangers of the world lie. In arrogance and ignorance of others.
Posted by: donna | April 9, 2006 1:24 PM
Well, gee, so you're jewish by birth - good for you. I'm a German/Irish/English/French/whatever else is in there mutt, myself. I certainly don't define myself by it. And yeah, I was right about the arrogance, huh?
Posted by: donna | April 9, 2006 1:26 PM
This is a huge dilemma. It's foolish to believe that Iran is interested in anything but getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.
I am a relative peacenik and am absolutely torn on this issue. Neither of these outcomes is acceptable: 1) Iran getting an A-bomb; and 2) a military strike to remove Iran's nuclear capability. However, there are no other outcomes possible.
Negotiations will not work because negotiating with fundamentalists is like negotiating with a street-corner prophet: rationality has to be there in the first place to make negotiations work. This could be applied to the Bush regime as well. I even severely doubt that offering a non-aggression pact would help, given that Iran's ruling class seems to view nuclear power (and certainly the weapons that will come with it) as a measure of sovereignity and especially power, making them part of a world elite in terms of military abilities. Thus, if we do nothing but negotiate, Iran will certainly get a nuclear weapon because it's been their goal from the start.
We could wait 20 years for real democracy to develop in Iran, given the current young age of the population and their home-grown desire for freedom. This is something the west could strongly encourage and was happening before Bush's infamous axis-of-evil speech. However, it will only take a few years to develop a functioning nuclear weapon and is it safe to let the mullahs have a device which could make all their apocalyptic dreams come true? It's scary enough having a religious zealot like Bush with his finger on the button, let alone these religious fanatics.
The second outcome is a military strike. This will only reinforce the rule of the Islamic ruling class and certainly set back any democratic reforms. An Iraq-style regime change is out of the question, given the rugged terrain, making a mechanized campaign extremely difficult. Furthermore, a military strike would only encourage Iran and other nations to develop such a weapon and alienate the west from the Muslim world further.
I'll digress a bit here and say that it doesn't surprise me that the Bush administration would use a nuclear weapon and break a critical taboo, given their disdain for all international accords and norms.
I'm not a black and white person by nature and realize that most political issues come in shades of grey. But, again, I can only see two outcomes to this: a nuclear Iran or military strikes. Frankly, it looks like the whole world is about to eat a shit sandwich regardless of what happens in Iran. All we can do is to decide whether we want crust on the bread or not.
Posted by: Miguelito | April 9, 2006 1:29 PM
Sorry for the poor grammar and syntax of the comment above, but I don't like labels and I got carried away, it seems...
Posted by: cp | April 9, 2006 1:29 PM
Donna, can you please name some of those leading Muslim scientific minds? As for "there's absolutely nothing wrong with Islam", I suggest you visit this site.
Also, as please explain this:
"Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
Qur'an, Sura 9:5
Posted by: Watcher | April 9, 2006 1:33 PM
No, reform doesn't happen over night. The question is: how do we begin it? My point with Afghanistan is precisely that Bush is not doing anything to spread liberal values. That likely is because he can't. That would undermine his own political base of right-wing fundamentalists.
Not living in Iran, I can only guess why the Iranians elected a fundamentalist wackjob as president. Still, I have to wonder if there weren't some connection to the US electing a fundamentalist wackjob as its president, one who proceeded to conquer Iran's long-time rival. If 9/11 changed the world, so did the US conquest of Iraq. And if the US's reelection of Bush was in part a reaction to Sunni fundamentalist striking New York on 9/11, might not Iran's election of Ahmadinejad in part be a reaction to Bush?
Repercussions are not simple, and are far different from the rosy scenario painted by this administration. How do you propose we begin to undermine the credibility and power of fundamentalist Islam? My belief is we have to include our own home-grown variety of fundamentalism as part of the problem, if we are credibly to oppose a different variety abroad. As long as the Islamic world sees the US fighting a crusade, that only strengthens its own religious right.
Posted by: Russell | April 9, 2006 1:35 PM
Iranians elected a religious whackjob because that's all they had to choose from: the Mullahs get have to approve any candidate who is running for president.
Posted by: Miguelito | April 9, 2006 1:37 PM
TAJ: you are so brave. You boldly confront the hateful, eliminationist rhetoric of racical Islam with... your own hateful, eliminationist rhetoric.
Now the question: should the U.S. preemptively use nuclear weapons against a nation that has not attacked it? Since this is the core question in this discussion, answer, or kindly STFU.
Posted by: CD318 | April 9, 2006 1:37 PM
If there were another 50 terrorist attacks in the West you pansies would be holding hands singing Kumbaya.
Gosh, AJ, you must be really, really tough, typing something like that!
Tell us, when are you enlisting?
You offer no solutions . . .
And your solution consists of:
How much you hate the Left.
Yup, Left-baiting, that's the ticket. I'm so glad people who think like you are driving our foreign policy. That liberal-bashing campaign will have the whole of Islam quaking in its mukluks.
Well done!
Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 9, 2006 1:47 PM
cd318, nukes are not necessary, but I definitely believe that a preemptive strike is a must.
What is your solution? Let them build a bomb first, and then negotiate? Good thing you have no clout.
I hate Islam, I admit it. Look how they treat their women, look what comes out of especially Arab states as far as technology and science goes. N0THING. They are a culture of hate and oppression, and they want the world to be them.
People who support Islam either know little about it, or they are Islamic.
This isn't a human rights issue you pansy Liberals.
The world would be a better place without those who kiss Islams butt. I am really starting to hate the Far Left.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | April 9, 2006 1:50 PM
Molly the Left offers no solutions. The only solution I see is that Islam has to be forced into the 21st Century. Since, the war in Iraq started the mindset of many Arabs have too. In a recent survey, I noticed that their values still are far apart from the Wests, but closing in bit by bit.
What is your solution? Negotiation doesn't work. Doing nothing won't work either.
Molly, can I call you Abdullah instead for now on.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | April 9, 2006 1:55 PM
Why are you people responding to the Athiest Jew? Has it not occurred to you that what a disturbed clownish troll he is? For goodness sake do not let this buffoon start hijacking our threads. Please. Ignore trolls.
Posted by: brent | April 9, 2006 1:57 PM
It'll be interesting, if he does this it'll be before the next election. I don't see how the republicans can hold both houses again, so to get full approval he'll need a republican crowd so..
we'll see.
Posted by: Geral Corasjo | April 9, 2006 1:57 PM
Bob O'H:
I reckon a lot of diplomats are very happy that [Hersh] has been published
Perhaps. It helps that Hersh doesn't speak for the gov't.
Or not happy - the alternate case for emphasizing back-channel private threats rather than highly publicized threats (which are harder to back down from) is made by journalist James Fallows' short article in the new Atlantic Monthly:
James Fallows is pretty credible, and his article from Fall '02 "Iraq: the FIfty-first State" was insightful. About two years ago the Atlantic including Fallows sponsored "war games" - not their usual business! - to explore possible US/Iranian moves and reactions. This month's article updates that. Not encouraging for any pre-emptive strike scenario.
Posted by: thwaite | April 9, 2006 1:58 PM
We use nukes in a preemptive strike and you can kiss our way of life goodbye.
See.. This is "precisely" the kind of insane bullshit that some posters here are talking about. The only people even suggesting using nukes to destroy the Iran nuke program are a) people that think the whole region should be nuked anyway and b) some people on the left that can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to suggest some other solution. The people talking seriously about it mean dropping conventional weapons on enrichment plants, in order to cripple their ability to make the stuff. I am not sure this is particularly unreasonablebeing fat cats, never stopped anyone else in the past from doing bone headedly stupid BS, in the deluded assumption that it would make them heroes and gain them even more power. Its certainly not likely to stop people whose official political position is, "Its all those damn Jews!"
If there is a better solution, lets hear it. Otherwise we need to see the bigger picture, which is that even if "they" don't use nukes, is a near certainty that they "will" sell them to someone else to use. Then what the #$#$#$ do you do?
Posted by: Kagehi | April 9, 2006 1:59 PM
Boy. Don't you just want to sign up to whatever newsletter this character is reading? I mean, such reasoned arguments, such insightful commentary, such a clear grasp on geopolitics, such a cunning debator. I know I'm convinced. Glad to know there's athiest jews out in the world who are protecting us pansy liberals from the overwhelming Islamofacist CommieNazi Horde that's poised to totally overrun our society, pervert our morals, quash our freedom and stare luridly at our women. Why, just think how easily a culture that gave the world such things as all-you-can-eat barbecue, "American Idol" and Jenna Jamerson would just roll over for a bunch of poorly funded, badly trained, haphazardly led raving religious dingbats.
I, for one, am inspired and heartened. Keep up the good work, Athiest Jew. Shine on, you crazy diamond, you.
Posted by: Matt T. | April 9, 2006 2:00 PM
This is an idle thought, but does it occur to anyone else that the cold war was actually successful and (I'm not confident in that assertion) now we've completely reversed our cold war tit-for-tat strategy?
Posted by: tng | April 9, 2006 2:03 PM
Note, that should be "far left". You know the types. The ones that run insane sites like Democratic Underground.
Posted by: Kagehi | April 9, 2006 2:06 PM
The real question is whether we are fighting a war akin to Vietnam or WWII. This conflict is not a MAD standoff between superpowers.
If this is a Vietnam type conflict, US interests globally are not really affected. Despite the "Domino Effect," Vietnam's fall had little impact on America (except for hyperinflation in the late 1970s). Vietnam never posed a threat, nuclear or otherwise, to America. Therefore, I reject the Vietnam comparison.
Quite to the contrary, we are fighting an enemy no less destructive and hell bent on global conquest than the Nazis.
Just read the English language versions of the Arab state controlled press or the MEMRI translations of what they don't want us to see. You will quickly realize that there is a profound Islamic hatred for the West, America and our ideals. We are decadent, immoral, the Great Satan and so on. Weekly a KFC is burned as a symbolic blow to America.
If a nuke falls into Iran's hands, yes there is a real threat to the "Little Satan" Israel. But remember, we are the Great Satan, so the threat to us is as real, if not greater.
We are in a Crusade. But in this Crusade Islam is the invader. Bush was just the unfortunate sod in the White House when Islam struck it first major blow to our way of life.
Posted by: happy_ruthy | April 9, 2006 2:15 PM
The only people even suggesting using nukes to destroy the Iran nuke program are a) people that think the whole region should be nuked anyway and b) some people on the left that can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to suggest some other solution.
Um... did you read either of the articles?
Posted by: AWJ | April 9, 2006 2:19 PM
Several summers ago, an International ANSWER commune in NYC had two posters displayed in their windows.
One read to the effect "Peace Now" and the other advocated a Palestinian "victory by any means".
Maybe some Loony Left Moonbat can reconcile these statements. I can't (unless of course, the Left is now advocating genocide of the Jews).
Posted by: happy_ruthy | April 9, 2006 2:24 PM
Several summers ago, an International ANSWER commune in NYC had two posters displayed in their windows.
One read to the effect "Peace Now" and the other advocated a Palestinian "victory by any means".
Maybe some Loony Left Moonbat can reconcile these statements. I can't (unless of course, the Left is now advocating genocide of the Jews).
Posted by: happy_ruthy | April 9, 2006 2:26 PM
just roll over for a bunch of poorly funded, badly trained, haphazardly led raving religious dingbats.
True. The ones that the US rolled over (Fundies and neo-cons) for are well funded.
Posted by: Graculus | April 9, 2006 2:27 PM
Brent, how am I a troll. I have a website, my picture is in it. My email is easily accessible and if any of you moonbats want to IM me you can reach me at theatheistjew on Yahoo IM.
My IM is turned off a lot though, but I get to it at least once a day.
So Brent, am I still a troll or are you just a pathetic leftwing baby?
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | April 9, 2006 2:35 PM
happy ruthy, I hope you are aware that MEMRI is run by former(?) member of the Israeli military intelligence. They pick only the stories that they want you to see, i.e. those that show the Arabs in the worst possible light. It's like having a news summary from USA containing only Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell.
The Arabs (or Persians) are no big threat. Look at their economies! They just don't have the resources to build modern militaries, as clearly showed against Iraq in two wars. In the Kuwait war I think USA had so deadly weapons they killed more of their soldiers themselves than Iraq managed to. Iran may be a tough nut to invade, because defending is a lot easier than attacking across the globe, but they have no possibility, nor have they shown any interest in, any miitary conquest.
I don't know if you are just decieved or one of the deceivevers, but the trick of pretending that the other side is a big threat has always been a viable ploy to gain support for a war. Reagan even managed to invade *Grenada* pretending it was a threat to national security!
Atheist Jew get 3/10 on a troll score. Invectives are nice, but it helps if you add a few arguments now and then that at least seem plausible on first look.
Posted by: Thomas | April 9, 2006 2:37 PM