We don’t massacre, and we try very hard to not torture, but yes, all that pro-American sentiment would indeed vanish in a wave of nationalism.
Yes, we do. Fallujah being a case in point.
Then we wouldn’t have done so. We didn’t do so because it was necessary or even useful; we tortured people because we wanted to. For lies we wanted to hear, and out of simple savagery. If we had invaded Iran, we would have tortured Iranians for the same reasons we did everyone else we tortured.
That would make a neat tagline under the Stars and Stripes.
Apparently it’s a bit addictive; something like potato chips. You can’t torture just one!
Where did you get that idea, exactly?
Land of Hope & Glory & We Try not to Torture
I didn’t know you were an expert on poll methodology. I just saw your poll by yet another pro-war US group, the kind of group that I’ve seen producing polls for decades now that claim that the citizens of some foreign country would really love us bombing them and/or overthrowing their government and thought it was nonsense. Then I link a poll of polls which apparently has rubbish methodology. I’m happy to let everyone reading make their own minds up over this one.
And I’m not cherry picking anything. Your original claim was that, in your own words, “They are more than happy to give up their nuclear program in exchange for warm relations and international aid.” and the polls show that that’s not the case. They may negotiate away making nuclear weapons but they’re solidly behind their nuclear program. Other bits I excerpted from the various poll results are just to generally point out that things aren’t quite like they’re portrayed in a lot of the media. I could easily say that you’re cherry picking your own poll by you avoiding mentioning that “Slightly more than half, however, said they still favor the development of nuclear weapons and think the country would be safer with them”, couldn’t I?
And these are your own words : “A free and democratic Iran might very well be the domino that changes the Middle East in a way that changes everything, from Jerusalem to Riydah.”
Do you still agree with that or do you now accept it’s nonsense?
Psst… in case you hadn’t noticed, I’m British, not American.
Gee, you’re still ignoring the methodological questions, with yet another ad hominem fallacy to ‘justify’ your evasion. Truly, what are the odds there Dick? And then moving on and simply imagining a claim that TFT is “pro-war”, and then using that too as an ad hominem fallacy to avoid looking at the methodology. Truly, unexpected.
Again, Dick, you can not cite your imagination. Well, not validly at least.
The actual poll shows quite clearly that when international aid and a cessation of the adversarial posture are offered, the vast, vast majority of Iranians are more than happy to drop their nuclear program. You going “nuh unh!” is not very convincing when faced with, you know, the truth. And everybody can check the PDF and see that what you’re claiming doesn’t exist is right there in Question 15.
Faced with facts, citing your imagination is… less than convincing.
Fallacy of equivocation. (whatta surprise!?!?)
Their nuclear program is one that deliberately stonewalls the IAEA by blocking inspections, removing evidence, hiding important details, etc… claiming that a nuclear program which wasn’t hiding anything and allowed full inspections is the same program is obfuscation.
If you wanted to engage in yet more cherrypicking that demonstrates the quality of your argument, sure. I suppose that you could do that and I could point out how you’d still deliberately be ignoring facts that you’ve been smacked with numerous times and deliberately pretending that when the Iranian people were asked a fair question, the supermajority was happy to give up the potential for nukes.
Then you could repeat your mistake again, and we could do this again and so on and so on and so on. Facts aren’t all that important if your goal is just to tell a good story.
Of course I still agree with the truth. And I still have to point out that you are totally unable to refute a single thing I’ve said about the effects of Iran upon the region or how they’d change because you aint got nuthin’. You are, however, very good at repeating the same bits of your narrative over and over again, no matter what facts are shown to you or what anybody says. It’s almost like the facts and the responses don’t matter, you’ve got a script and damnit, you’re stickin’ to it.
Here, I’ll jog your memory (again) and I expect you to ignore it (again):
Now, I know this will be hard, but try addressing the actual facts of the matter. Try to argue (I know it’s hard, because you aint got nuthin’) as to why all the things that Iran effects now will magically stay the same even if Iran totally changes its actions and stance. Or just keep repeating “Nuh unh!!!” I mean, that’s a pretty effective factual rebuttal too. I guess.
Unless the ruling regime in Iran have a major change of heart, we should start getting used to the idea of a nuclear Iran. However, I don’t think it’s wrong of them to want nukes, considering how we’ve treated worse regimes that have them. They want it for their protection. And given our two countries’ histories, I think they are entitled to it.
Iran should have nukes. I don’t agree with their government, but I can’t see any reason for them not to have one for protection.
Yeah, I already said let’s leave people to decide on the correctness of my actual polls or your poll methodology expertise.
Now assuming Iran goes democratic. The democratically-elected Iranian government would change positions on issues in their region as much as the democratically elected government of Iraq did and don’t forget according to your own poll the majority of Iranians favor funding Hezbollah and Hamas, so no change there. And anyway, Hamas are mainly funded by Arab nations, not Iran. Hezbollah or any organisation in opposition to Israel would attract support from the same kind of Gulf millionaires and billionaires that fund similar Islamic groups in Kashmir, Chechnya and elsewhere and obviously the situations that created Hamas and Hezbollah, peace be upon them, to resist Israel would still exist. The Palestinian problem or the situation on Lebanon’s southern border are not going to evaporate because Iran has a new government. So you’re still going to get resistance unless Israel agree to negotiate in good faith with them, a non-starter. So effectively no change there then.
That still leaves the question of whether Iran’s new government would create some kind of domino effect, like the new government in Iraq was supposed to. You still have 20 or so Arab nations where the regimes are propped up to some extent by the US. Rather than anything happening in Iran, it’s something happening in Washington, a reversal of current foreign policy, that would create the potential for the end of the current Arab regimes.
Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, could see the fall of the regime if US aid was withdrawn, sanctions imposed etc. The patronage system of government wold crumble and with no oil wealth and hungry millions they’d have to agree to hold free elections or face catastrophe. But they would have a Muslim Brotherhood government if democratic elections were held, as the limited (then scrapped) free election held there a few years ago showed. To give you an idea of what they’d be like, Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So we’ll continue to prop up the Mubarak regime.
In Saudi, the wealthiest Arab country, all we’d have to do to get the House of Saud dictatorship to fall is for Obama to call up Vinnell corp. and tell them to recall the few thousand military contractors that the Saudis employ to protect them from their own security services who we know are riven by internal tribal/religious factions and decidedly anti-west. We’d get some kind of a civil war over the country between various military/armed groups of varying levels of religiosity, but whatever happened we’d end up with a much less western-friendly government than we have now, the price of oil skyrocketing for an unknown length of time, etc. etc. Definitely not in our interests, which is why we have the US-backed Praetorian Guard around the Saudi royal family, even the ones who fund Al Quaeda.
Jordan is majority Palestinian. A democratic election there would find a pro-Palestinian government in charge in Amman in a country that borders the West Bank. How would Israel react to that, hmmm? Would that help stability in the region?
And that’s just three examples. Of course there’d be no real change in the region because it’s not in America’s interest to have any change. We don’t want democracy there, we just want pro-American regimes and regime change in countries without pro-American regimes, QED. This democracy domino idea you have is one of the ridiculous claims that the neocons made to get us into Iraq, at best it’s a source of amusement for people who know about the region (but don’t live there) and at worst it’s the kind of thing that leads nations into foreign disasters like Iraq. It’s amazing that anybody still takes them and their discredited arguments seriously anymore but obviously some people will believe anything. You really can fool some of the people all of the time.
What’re the odds? I refute your mistakes, try to point you to the actual facts, and then you somehow manage to make the same exact errors again. And again. And again. I do so wonder how that happens. And you still refuse to comment on the methodology of any of the polls involved. I wonder, is it because you are incapable of doing so, or because you simply aint got nuthin’ and have no possibility of responding to the facts I’ve mentioned with anything but “nuhn unh!!!”
Now, again, you’re conflating financial assistance with the military/logistical/training support that Iran gives Hamas and Hezbollah, and you claim that is no change. Of course, I already pointed out your mistake there, but undeterred by any mere facts you have bravely soldiered on. Sure, Iran supporting the peace process and no longer supplies Hezbollah or Hamas with weapons, training, safe haven, logistical support… but nothing changes. Again you refrain from explaining the magic involved makes that exactly the same as it is today, and just repeat “nuhn unh!!!”
Unfortunately enough for you, facts don’t go away even if you sneer at them
Getting away from your support of racists who want to commit genocide and your non-facts about Israel never negotiating in good faith, let’s talk about your broader counter-factual narrative, shall we? I’m curious. Where do you get your claims? It’s obviously not from anything in this thread, so I’m curious. You evidently had the idea that the “dominoes” will bring about democracy in the Middle East. What’s more, you seem to actually believe that such a thing was said in this thread. Predictably, it bears not even a passing resemblance to anything that’s actually in this thread.
So please, do explain which method of divination lets you arrive at a claim about something that never happened in reality. Normally that would be quite difficult, so I’m curious how you manage it.
And seriously, drop the ad hominem fallacies. I know you think they add something, but again they just show that if your argument was a student, it would have to stay late after class just to fail. If you cannot address the actual changes that would be brought about in the Middle East due to a change in Iran’s actions and stance, then just admit it. Seriously, you’ll feel better. Just admit that you have no idea how to refute the facts, but you don’t like them so you’ll be hostile to them. I’ll understand. I mean, so far you’ve dreamed up an argument that nobody made and ‘refuted’ that, and repeated another dodge of yours that was already refuted. You and I both know what’s going on, so why belabor the obvious?
Repeating as a mantra “neocons, bad, Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq!” just makes it very clear that you aint got nuthin’.
Yeah, I’m happy to let everyone reading this decide for themselves which of us knows nothing.
I’m not sure how happy you’d remain if you put it to a vote, though. 
-XT
Although I personally don’t want to see a nuclear Iran, and yet at the same time wonder what gives us (the US) or any country the right to say, “You can’t have them,” Iran ratified a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 so it’s within the UN’s right to try and stop them from making any.
I always try to look at things from more than one point of view though. If America felt threatened, we damn sure wouldn’t let some treaty tell us if we can or cannot take steps to defend ourselves. Yes, Iran should either withdraw from the treaty or follow it. But it fears for its existence, and not without cause. What it’s doing is wrong, but it’s less wrong than any other country, with the means, would accept.
Besides, this is about trust. We don’t trust Iran’s stated intention of not building a weapon. We should be able to monitor them to enforce it. However, Iran hasn’t, to my knowledge, broken any rule that eggregious. They won’t let us monitor and they claim to do it peacefully. We don’t trust them, and we want to monitor them. Since that’s where the stalemate is at, I see little reason not to let them continue what they’re doing.
Now if they actually came out and said they were building a bomb, that would be different. But all stories I’ve read says that Iran wants to refine uranium to the point where they can make a bomb very quickly, but not build a bomb. If that’s the situation we have to accept, then I’m willing to accept it
So America has nukes.
America is the only country that has ever used a nuke on another.
How can they justify telling the Iranians they can’t have them? Seems hypocritical in the extreme.
Unless morals go out the window when it comes to “national security”
Surely not?
Yeah, there are a few dummies on the board but most people seem fairly sensible.
Ah, well good for you! Hope springs eternal and all that jazz.
-XT
Actually, it’d be interesting to see one on this issue and ones similar to it for I think many of us have simply given up on speaking up on any topic that remotely involves Israel and US foreign policy in the MENA region.
Doesn’t mean we’ve changed our minds.
It’s funny, perhaps if Dick spent less time praising genocidal racists he might have noticed that his own cite (unaddressed methodolgical flaws and all) pointed out that the Iranian populace would be willing to give up their self-contained and secretive nuclear program and institute an international program.
But, amusingly, Red was kind enough to point out the utility in my constant fact-checking of these topics. Those who don’t argue a factual position but rather a well-worn narrative often burn out on these topics. Sooner or later, the weight of factual refutations gets heavy and the narrative falls apart, and they often stop trying. I’d imagine that it must be very frustrating. I can imagine that after the n[sup]th[/sup] time of “well, okay, so my facts are wrong but I’m still not changing my claims, so there!” the whole exercise begins to seem a bit… stale.
If by relentlessly relying on facts and actual history I can keep these discussions even a bit more accurate, then I think I’ve done a hell of a lot of good. We are about fighting ignorance here, not advancing agendas. For some reason discussions of the ME are some of the most prone to counter-factual narratives outside of full-bore conspiracy theory threads. Or as Red kindly admits, despite years of factual refutations that they’ve had no answers for, some folks still haven’t changed their minds.