Then how can you claim that the Iranians are irrationally hostile to the US? There are obvious, real, reasonable grievances from their part.
The coup on `53 to begin with, and now Iran sees the US doing the same, no, a much worse thing, right next door and you handwave them as irrationally hostile and wary of the US.
Show me your logic because it`s not clear to me.
Reasonable grievances?
Let’s assume that this is so - leaving aside the fact that nearly every country on earth has grievances of some kind, legitimate or not. How do the Iranians attempt to resolve these grievances?
Well, they keep them alive and unresolved so that they can keep their population perpetually angry and supportive of the regime. They sponsor terrorism against us and our allies to achieve a dual goal of damage against us and renewed anger against them, justifying renewed anger and revolutionary fervor.
However reasonable their grievances, their behavior isn’t reasonable.
As to our presence in the Mideast, we have been there for some time - and in several moderate Gulf states, our presence causes little controversy among either the ruling class or the general population. Now, I am not suggesting that Iran should tomorrow offer us basing rights - but it is clear that a general liberalization and opening to the West would be beneficial to most people there.
Such a move, though, would be the death knell to a radical revolutionary Islamist regime, though, so it is clear why it is resisted.
So yeah, they have grievances. So do we. The difference is that we have somewhat of a track record of burying our grievances when progress can be made on both sides. Not a perfect one, but it is there.
The ayatollahs don’t have that kind of record.
I’m a little fuzzy on that, Moto. Refresh my memory on our willingness to let bygones be bygones in the ME. Top ten or fifteen will do nicely. Kinda seems to me that an outside observer might have good reason to believe that we have behaved recently with stubborn belligerance and a determination to avoid peaceful resolution, like in…oh, that one country, starts with an “I”…not really a BHAD, just an invasion and occupation, but still, little things like that can have quite an impact on a country’s reputation, especially when blown out of proportion… You know how these people can be, the teensiest little invasion, and they make a big hairy ass deal about it!
But anyway, I brief rundown of our top ten, if you would.
To be fair, I wasn’t specifically thinking of the Mideast when I wrote this. Yet it is true that we improved our relations with India significantly in recent years.
We have normalized relations with China, despite being involved in a shooting war with them some time ago.
The same can be said of Vietnam. Moreover, improved relations with both countries did not necessitate regime change in either one.
Likewise, we have gradually improved our relations with Libya - we have full diplomatic ties now, and the liason office has been upgraded to an embassy. Again, this did not necessitate a change in the constitution of the Libyan regime, only their behavior.
So there is some evidence for my view, clearly. I can come up with more examples if pressed, but I’m sure you will accept these as a starting point for debate.
Antonius Block
Yes, you are quite correct. I was wrong in stating that the reactor that Israel bombed in 1981 was in Iran. It was Iraq. Sorry. Usually, I take great care to make sure that all details of my postings are dead on accurate, with proper grammar and no tpyos. Now, if nothing else, I have learned one thing - not to make lengthy postings when I am very tired.
I don’t know how you expect to define a discrete incidence of “bygoneness,” but the substantially improved relations with Libya over the past five years is a good example.
Didn’t the British do most of the heavy-lifting on that one?
Little victories. Tugging on supermans cape. After Iraq War 1, I read that Saddam was a hero for still being in power after he got his butt kicked. I thought it was strange ,but he said ,I am still here . Not victory on my view but some defined it that way. This is a tiny little victory for a couple speed boat drivers.
Frankly, the Libyans did a lot of heavy lifting here. They paid restitution for the death of a British constable killed in a pro-Qaddafi demonstration, paid damages to the families of Lockerbie victims, and indeed did work to get improved relations with Britain.
They subsequently gave up their nuclear ambitions, which led to improved relations with us.
Well, then, shouldn’t you confine your examples to situations in which the olive branch was held out by us first? And wouldn’t that be most appropriate, being as we fear no evil in the Valley of Death, being the meanest SOB’s in the Valley?
And if, as has been noted above, peaceful noises undermine the power of the radicals in Iran, if patience and restraint undermines our enemies, isn’t that just about the peachiest damn thing you ever heard? How often to you get to sing “Kumbaya” as an act of cold realpolitik? Make peace, not war, as a means to victory? Shit, does it get any better than that? Ever?
Don’t you think we do this? We’ll talk to Iran - we’re doing it now. We’ll talk to North Korea - fat lot of good it does most times. We’ll talk to nearly anyone.
We gave Hussein numberless chances to change his behavior before the first Gulf War, during the Clinton Administration, and in the run-up to this present conflict. Now, you may say this wasn’t sufficient, but it isn’t as if he wasn’t offered chances to change his relationship with us.
The fact remains that we had to go to war with him in 1990, we had to strike him militarily in the Clinton Administration, and IMHO another war with his regime was inevitable given the fact that his behavior never changed to any appreciable degree.
Now, Iran is in a similar position - they haven’t moderated much. Wouldn’t it be in their interest to do so?
That’s pretty much my point. Why bother.
BTW, “Kumbaya” is only sung by hippies and Cub Scouts. If you want to send them a message of peace, let it be a serious one.
I see…war with Iraq was “inevitable”. Unavoidable, due to their “behavior”. War with Libya, however, was not inevitable. Little fuzzy here, Moto, how many blatant acts of terrorism was Iraq unquestionably responsible for? Which airliners bombed, stuff like that? When Colin Powell described Iraq as “contaned”, i.e., no threat, was he lying? And if he was not, which overt threatening actions had Iraq undertaken since then (2001, IIRC) that would justify your use of “inevitable”.
I’m straining to be polite here, please don’t disappoint.
Only after a stunning reversal of Republican policy.
It usually is your side that accuses Colin Powell of lying.
Please provide a date and cite for his quote, so that I may fairly evaluate it (I could of course look it up, but you should be able to back up your claims as well.)
You never heard of this? News to you? After all those arguments about Iraq, this is the first time you’ve heard this? Honest engine? Condoleeze Rice and Colin Powell, news conference in Egypt, (IIRC) 2001, and you never heard anything about it?
Utterly irrelevent snark. I don’t have a side, I have an opinion, an opinion, I hasten to point out, that events have proven to be largely correct. This ain’t “shirts and skins”.
Emphasis wearily added, after tracking this sumbitch down.
Thank you for that.
As for the claim, I don’t think Powell was lying, but as for containment and the long-term effectiveness of the sanctions, I think he was wrong.
The Oil-for-Food program and its corruption by the regime provided buckets of cash to Hussein that not only allowed him to mitigate the effects of most of the sanctions, but also provided a slush fund that permitted him to buy support for lifting sanctions.
According to the Duelfer Report, sanctions had stopped restraining the regime by the late 1990s, and their formal end was a foregone conclusion. Moreover, Hussein would have restarted full-scale work on banned programs once he was no longer restrained.
Again, had this continued with no change in behavior from the regime, another war with Iraq would have been necessary in a number of years. And since I have never seen any indication that the Hussein regime intended to change, I regard such a war as inevitable given these conditions.
That’s a far cry different than Libya, which did indeed moderate its behavior after 1994.
Por nada.
Certainly settles that.
And you base this determination on…what, perzackly? Scrying with entrails? Magic 8-Ball? I’m very interested in methods of predicting the future, what did you use?
You haven’t been very specific about this “behavior” that so definitively demands a preventive, inevitable war. We certainly know what Libya did that was intolerable, what did Saddam do? Voodoo? The Evil Eye? Or is your thesis of inevitable war based on nothing more tangible than your assessment of his personality? A bit thin for starting a war, don’t you think? Wouldn’t you at least have to gaze into his soul? (A gruesome prospect, to be sure…)
Indeed, they had a lot of behavior to moderate. What was Saddam supposed to do to enter into select company, i.e., people we aren’t going to invade?