[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I can only conclude, based on this question, that you are wholly unfamiliar with her oeuvre.
[/QUOTE]
Personally I can’t stand disingenuousness. How I can stand to live with myself I have no idea.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Apparently we arrested people so threatening that, after saying they worked for the Iranian Electrical Ministry, we released them and apologized.
[/QUOTE]
The refutation of your post lies in those sage words “USA, USA, USA!”.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Why have you changed the topic?
[/QUOTE]
Didn’t know that I had. I was merely pointing out what I found to be a flaw in your thinking.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
My remark was a specific response to the absurd notion that the siezure of the Brits who were seeking contraband in the Shatt al Arab was an act of war. An act of war should be sufficiently significant as to actually provoke a war. As noted, we did not consider it an act of war when the Chinese wound up with our Orion and aircrew early in 2001. (We did not even consider it an act of war when the North Koreans siezed the USS Pueblo with far less legitimacy.)
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. An act of war is just that - a hostile act sufficient to provoke armed conflict. Whether such a hostile act is answered with actual conflict is another matter entirely. Now mind you, I’m not advocating war to the exclusion of all other diplomatic and political methods - what I advocate is keeping our options open with respect to Iran. All of them.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Now, if you want to change the topic to that of whether Iran is assisting in the destabilization of Iraq–and killing our troops in the process, you will need to get in line behind the people who were killed, (often murdered), in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Angola, and any number of other places by U.S. forces or weapons.
[/QUOTE]
Uh huh. Well, in addressing whether Iran is wrong, it shouldn’t matter whether its target was (arguably) wrong in the past, should it?
So I’m a bit suspicious of folks like you who appear to excuse or explain away their atrocious behavior by bringing up our failings. Call it a tu quoque or a false equivalence, it’s still the same pile of crap to me.
To their great credit, most Democrats aren’t falling into this trap - I saw Jack Reed express a lot of concern about this topic, as well as Hillary Clinton. Perhaps you ought to follow their lead on this one, which sure won’t bring you into line with the Bush administration. But it will get you away from defending a position on what is and isn’t an act of war that really isn’t defensible.
John Bolton is delivering a message, and the Iranians now have to guess whose message it is - after all, he no longer works for the government, so the views expressed are presumably his own. Of course, given his proximity to the Oval Office, this message might reflect the views of others. I certainly don’t know myself, but I do like this ambiguity.
It’s the sort of thing an administration might do when they want to apply severe pressure but avoid war.
Now, of course, I cannot know if this is or isn’t the case in the present. But yeah, I’m one of those still willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on this one. Hell, on this I’d have done the same for Clinton - lets remember that our basic policy toward the Iranians hasn’t changed since the Carter administration.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Well, I guess you lose. Godwin and all that.
Apparently we arrested people so threatening that, after saying they worked for the Iranian Electrical Ministry, we released them and apologized. What was their crime? They were – hold on – thought to be armed. And in Iraq. I’m no fan of the Iranian government, but the fact that someone is armed in Iraq could just mean that… oh, I don’t know, they want to exercise some measure of self-defense. I know, I know, it’s wild, unfounded speculation… I just merely mean to suggest that if there’s danger about, some people like to have gun at their disposal. People like… everyone in Iraq. Or Republicans who live in suburbs.
By the way, do you think Spain and Britain are at war? Because Britain invaded a few years ago. Invasion is certainly an act of war, isn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
Oh my God you can’t be serious. They’re just members of the Iranian Electircal Ministry. I suppose the Germans where just “ditch diggers” that were very, what iz zee word, proficient, Ya? What’s next? Innocent Taliban?
So the US government arrested and released these people with an apology, but *you * know that they were actually doing something sinister and were not merely members of the Iranian Electrical Ministry at all. Mwahaha. Thanks for the tip off. One of the things I love about the SDMB is the way there are people who have inside information on just about any topic. Tell me, do you know anything about Area 51? I don’t buy the government line on that one, either.
Refraining from framing every questionable act as hostile may save the lives of women and men – ours and theirs. Likewise, every hostile act is not an act of war. This principle holds true for statesmen, diplomats and those who value peace. It doesn’t hold true for trigger-happy cowboys, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, and schoolyard bullies who are itching to fight.
When the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner with over 250 people on board as it flew from New York to Seoul and accidentally ventured into Soviet airspace, was that considered an act of war? It was certainly condemned as barbaric. Sanctions were taken. It was most definitely considered a hostile act. But nowhere did I hear anyone refer to it as an “act of war.” No one survived. I still remember the images of the bodies in the water.
Some of you have forgotten was halfway civilized life was like.
But I suspect that it’s easy to find individuals who don’t want to kill Americans or be involved in a war at all. They are no so different from us.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Didn’t know that I had. I was merely pointing out what I found to be a flaw in your thinking.
[/QUOTE]
It is not a flaw in my thinking that caused you to change the actual topic of discussion from one specific event to a different specific event. I never made a claim that Iran had done nothing wrong. I noted that the specific incident of taking the folks boarding ships was not a clear case of an act of war, particularly if they were taken in Iran’s territorial waters, which Iran claimed they were.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
An act of war is just that - a hostile act sufficient to provoke armed conflict.
[/QUOTE]
The act was not sufficient to provoke armed conflict, just as the capture of earlier ships and planes had not provoked a conflict. Even back in the days when action often precluded diplomacy, the Trent Affair did not actually result in war.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Oh my God you can’t be serious. They’re just members of the Iranian Electircal Ministry. I suppose the Germans where just “ditch diggers” that were very, what iz zee word, proficient, Ya? What’s next? Innocent Taliban?
[/QUOTE]
The question still remains, do you considers the actions of the U.S. in taking Iranians captive to be an act of war on par with the Iranians taking British sailors? And if you advocate a military response in one case, what response do you expect for the other?
Suppose we restrict it to just the countries involved, then? In discussing how we should respond to Iranian provocations, I think it’s entirely relevant to question how our actions have provoked, and may continue to provoke them. I also think it’s unreasonable and foolish to demand a standard of behavior from other countries that is higher than what we even expect from ourselves. I hear people who are aghast that the Iranians might have sent people and weapons into Iraq, and even begun to train some of the locals. Hello? We’ve sent 150,000 troops, God knows how many weapons, and trained their entire military and police force.
When a former diplomat from my country suggests that he’d like to “engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments”, it’s not a false equivalence to point out that that’s exactly what got us into the current mess with Iran in the first place.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
- lets remember that our basic policy toward the Iranians hasn’t changed since the Carter administration.
[/QUOTE]
Would that be the basic policy of selling Iran weapons and replacement parts for U.S. built weapons or the basic policy of refusing to recognize their government as legitimate or our policy of supporting Hussein or our policy of shooting down civilain airliners, (now there is an act of war), or our policy of constructive engagment or our policy of sabre rattling and making idiotic claims of an “axis of evil”? Our “basic” policy appears to be “what feels good at the moment.”
About right, I think, from the esteemed unpronounceable.
The Bushiviks need Iran to fuck up, hence the goading. A torpedo boat opening fire on a humvee. Or something. Anything, really.
Witness Rep. Duncan Hunter’s effort to punish Columbia U for letting whathisface speak there. The “Restore Patriotism to University Campuses Act”. (I swear I’m not making this up…) Its all about establishing that Iran is The Enemy, not simply an adversary. Letting him speak is not merely dialogue with the disagreeable, but an act of betrayal because…he is The Enemy.
Emmanuel Goldstien is in Tehran, we have solid intelligence. Pretty solid.
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
Yeah, we did it in Iran in 1953 and look how well that’s turned out.
[/QUOTE]
There are many who would argue that it worked out very well untill we abandoned the Shah in the 70’s.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I noted that the specific incident of taking the folks boarding ships was not a clear case of an act of war, particularly if they were taken in Iran’s territorial waters, which Iran claimed they were.
[/qUOTE]
They also tortured said “folks”. Iranian apologists, who knew there could be such a thing?
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
They also tortured said “folks”. Iranian apologists, who knew there could be such a thing?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they nicked one lad’s iPod.
Inhuman bastards.
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=e-logic]
Yeah, they nicked one lad’s iPod.
Inhuman bastards.
:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
They also made them lie in front of the cameras, in direct violation of some Geneva convention we keep hearing about. :mad:
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
They also made them lie in front of the cameras, in direct violation of some Geneva convention we keep hearing about. :mad:
[/QUOTE]
OMG!!!111!!
Well, that’s gotta justify wheeling out the nukes. :dubious:
Given the choice of Iranian “torture” - being paraded in front of a camera in a cheap suit - or the USA’s version (electrodes to the genitals, waterboarding, beatings etc etc), I know which our troops would prefer.
And IIRC the “lie” was that our ship was in Iranian waters - given the frankly limited intelligence of those sailors, and the disputed nature of the border in that waterway, it’s more than likely true.
[QUOTE=e-logic]
OMG!!!111!!
Well, that’s gotta justify wheeling out the nukes. :dubious:
Given the choice of Iranian “torture” - being paraded in front of a camera in a cheap suit - or the USA’s version (electrodes to the genitals, waterboarding, beatings etc etc), I know which our troops would prefer.
And IIRC the “lie” was that our ship was in Iranian waters - given the frankly limited intelligence of those sailors, and the disputed nature of the border in that waterway, it’s more than likely true.
[/QUOTE]
Like I said, it’s truly amazing that there are Iranian apologists posting here.
So **Carol ** is there any level of offence you’d tolerate from another nation that you’d not consider to be declaring war? Presumably with you in charge it would be all out war, all the time.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Like I said, it’s truly amazing that there are Iranian apologists posting here.
[/QUOTE]
It’s also amazing that there are still Bush apologists posting here. I’d have thought you’d have crawled back under your rocks by now.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
But I suspect that it’s easy to find individuals who don’t want to kill Americans or be involved in a war at all. They are no so different from us.
[/QUOTE]
The last I heard, according the the polls most of them do want Americans to be killed. And that isn’t different than how we or anyone else would respond to what we have done.
If the majority of Iraqis didn’t want to kill us, that’s what would make them very, very different than us.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Like I said, it’s truly amazing that there are Iranian apologists posting here.
[/QUOTE]
Given your rather broad definition, the only amazing thing would be if there were not.