War with IRAN! No! No! HELL No!

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by Ogre *
**Actually, elucidator, may I steal that line, for all its intended sarcasm? My girlfriend is a librarian, and it would tickle her. **

Freak freely! Of course, when it comes to tickling girlfriends, I rather prefer the personal touch… And I am pleased to hear that you are not directly aligned with the Forces of Darkness. Means there’s hope.

Mr. B (or B, if I may adress you informally) is Verilux a play on my name? If so, I would be flattered if I had so much as a shred of modesty. Had some once, but she took it back.

And yes, I very much would like to hear something like what we can do. “What is to be done?” What, indeed? Suggestions gladly accepted, myself, I’m at my wits end.

I have it on Good Authority that despair is a sin. But what, Lord? What?

[Ogre]

And thank God for Blair. He has a rare understanding of what’s at stake in the long run.

[elucidator]

And thank heaven for the Spanish government, who have the good sense to entirely ignore the will of thier own people, when offered the opportunity to suck up to America!

Thats Leadership! Franco would be proud!

[UncleBill]

Seems everyone is in agreement:

Rep. Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on Goss’ committee, said she considered Iran “more of a clear and present danger than Iraq last year” but wants a diplomatic focus.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., a Democratic presidential hopeful who strongly backed the Iraq war, said “regime change” is the answer in Iran. He said he was not suggesting U.S. military action because of the pro-American attitudes of many Iranians.

and from gobear’s link:

Pentagon officials pressing hard for public and private actions that they believe could lead to the toppling of the government through a popular uprising, officials said.
<snip>
In July, Bush signaled a harder line when he issued a strongly worded presidential statement in which he praised large pro-democracy street demonstrations in Iran. Administration officials said at the time that they had abandoned any hope of working with President Mohammad Khatami and his reformist allies in the Iranian government, and would turn their attention toward democracy supporters among the Iranian people.

[Reeder]

*Originally posted by Ogre *
**snip…

. There’s no reason to think that we’re fighting Islam itself. We just can’t have theocracies. **

But what if a Theocracy is what the people want? Do their wishes matter?

[elucidator]

To hell with Joe Lieberman! Who the fuck wants Republican Lite?!

And the horse upon in which he rode!

[milroyj]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**“Message” according to whom? That may be the message you hope an invasion of Iran would send, and that may be the message the Administration would like it to send, but sweetie, what really matters is the message that the people on the receiving end are hearing.

And the message a lot of people in the Muslim world and elsewhere are hearing loud and clear right now is "The United States reserves the right to fuck with you to any extent on any trumped-up excuse, whenever it wants to. **

First, I never said anything about invading Iran.

Second, the Islamists mistakenly chose to bring their fight here. We will bring it back to them, in spades.

Third, Hi Opal!

[Tee]

*Originally posted by Mr. B *
**Ladies out there, let’s hear you in the cheap seats: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/24/MN135276.DTL **

What about it?

Any country adopting a harsh theocratic system of government after a secular one will inherit a problem of people not wanting to give up what ‘modern’ freedoms they have enjoyed. Good luck to 'em. And no one, at this time, has the authority to impose that kind of system except for the US and UK; one would have to be voted in by the people. I think the odds of that happening are slim because of the Iraqi women. And because there are secular Shia, and Sunnis, and whatever ‘others’ that exist. It’s one thing to be imposing strict rule on an orphanage in a dangerous time, quite another to be imposing religious fundmentalism statewide.

[Sam_Stone]

As much as I’m enjoying watching elucidator blow a gasket, I think a voice of sanity is in order here:

If you have a cite that says Bush is planning a war against Iran, I’d like to see it. Thank you.

The fact is, Iran is a problem. Iran is a moderate, pro-American country that just happens to be run by a bunch of crazy motherfuckers. They won’t relinquish power, and the people don’t want them.

So the Bush administration is leaning on them. Turning up the heat. It’s not a threat of war, it’s just muscular diplomacy. Bush gained a ton of political capital (read: credibility for doing what he says he’ll do) by knocking over Saddam. He has new muscles in the region. So he’s flexing them.

I don’t support a war against Iran. I do support muscular diplomacy against Iran.

[SnoopyFan]

elucidator, for someone as seemingly intelligent as you, I am really surprised you didn’t see this coming a mile away.

North Korea’s probably next after Iran, just so you know.

[Kimstu]

Ogre: That I remain ogrish toward people whose stated aim is to establish a pan-Arabic and eventually greater Islamic theocracy is not something I see as a fault.

Look, pal, just because you don’t like the ideas of some Iranian leaders about theocratic rule (“pan-Arabic”?? as luc pointed out, Iranians aren’t Arabs) doesn’t automatically entitle you to overthrow their government. If China doesn’t like our policies of aggressive hegemony, does that entitle them to invade us and try to overthrow ours?

My God, the number of people whose idea of what constitutes a legitimate reason to declare war on another nation apparently boils down to “because we can win easily, and um, they’re real bad guys” absolutely stuns me. I’ve seen twelve-year-olds playing “Civilization” who have a more intelligent grasp of the rationales and risks involved in military aggression.

If we eventually democratize and secularize the governments of the Islamic world, it’ll be worth it.

And what makes you think that attacking them is the best or fastest way to bring that about? As was pointed out above, Iran was experiencing a lot of pro-democracy and anti-theocracy unrest, accompanied by a lot of expressed admiration and sympathy for American society, before our current policies caused many Iranians to regard us as more of a threat than a model for emulation.

There’s no reason to think that we’re fighting Islam itself. We just can’t have theocracies.

Did you go through the whole Iraq war not noticing that Iraq was not a theocracy but a rigorously secular state? The “we’re only fighting theocracy” excuse is already dead in the water.

as the much-maligned W & Co. demonstrated in Iraq, wars can be prosecuted against terrorism-sponsors without the appearance of anti-Islamicism

Wishful thinking again. What you would like the Iraq invasion to have “demonstrated” isn’t likely to change the prevalent Iraqi opinion that it wasn’t about fighting “terrorism-sponsors” but rather about oil and US imperialism.

Jeez, you’re just sitting there in your own happy little bubble, aren’t you? “We are successfully showing the world that we stand for peace, freedom, and democracy. We are successfully showing the world that we stand for peace, freedom, and democracy. We are successfully showing the world…” Must be very comforting to be able to talk yourself into believing that you’re on the right path without having to pay any attention to facts that might contradict you.

[elucidator]

Jesus, Sam, you got some kind of man-crush going here? “Muscular diplomacy”? Thats like, “threats”, right? You like that sort of manly chest-thumping? Kee-rist, Sam, we’re not talking rugby here! This is about making people dead!

You’re damn straight I’m “blowing a gasket”! Why aren’t you?

[Ogre]

But what if a Theocracy is what the people want? Do their wishes matter?

Much as I hate to say it, for the future good of humanity, I don’t think theocracy should be allowed in any nation, as it tends to irrevocably muddle both with the religion and the government, to the detriment of both…not to mention the basic rights of the people.

In short, religion in government is a cage. People should have precisely the same human rights worldwide. If a woman wishes to wear a burqa, that’s one thing. If she will be punished for not wearing one, that’s something I don’t think should be tolerated.

Globalization is perhaps the most inevitable force in politics and economics today. It will not be stopped. I’d have a lot more hope for a world full of liberal, secular democracies than I would for one full of restrictive theocracies.

[elucidator]

Oh, cite? Evening news, Rumsfeld, straight from the horses…mouth.

[Kimstu]

milroyj: First, I never said anything about invading Iran.

Well, you predicted “regime change” there “in six months”. What are you suggesting? Spontaneous popular uprisings? Or uprisings fostered by US influence and funds?

*Second, the Islamists mistakenly chose to bring their fight here. We will bring it back to them, in spades. *

Which “Islamists”? In case you never noticed, the ones who “brought their fight” to DC and NY are already dead, and the one who planned their attack is an international fugitive whom our anti-terrorism forces have nonetheless so far failed to “bring the fight back to.”

So what “Islamists” are you swaggering about “bringing the fight back to”, if you’re not advocating invading Iran?

[Kimstu]

Ogre: Much as I hate to say it, for the future good of humanity, I don’t think theocracy should be allowed in any nation, as it tends to irrevocably muddle both with the religion and the government, to the detriment of both…not to mention the basic rights of the people.

Well, to some extent I think you have a point, although it pains me to make such an admission in the Pit. However, I think it’s childish folly (ah, that’s better :)) to imagine that the US can be successful in unilaterally deciding what will or won’t be “allowed” in other governments. The real threats to democracy and freedom these days, including the threat of terrorism, come not so much from “rogue states” as from weak states. (Why isn’t the Administration talking up an invasion of the theocratic, terrorist-sheltering Saudi Arabia, by the way?)

Diverting the world from theocracy towards democracy is going to require much harder work and much smarter ideas than just stomping into country after country and saying “There! You’re free! Now let’s see some secular democracy around here!”

[Ogre]

And what makes you think that attacking them is the best or fastest way to bring that about? As was pointed out above, Iran was experiencing a lot of pro-democracy and anti-theocracy unrest, accompanied by a lot of expressed admiration and sympathy for American society, before our current policies caused many Iranians to regard us as more of a threat than a model for emulation.

Well, from one viewpoint, it’s because with an arc of Western-style governments stretching eventually from Jordan, through Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, will promote pro-Western ideas enormously. Give people freedom, and watch their lives, in general, get better. It’s a powerful PR tool.

But more to the point, I hope we don’t actually have to attack. I’d much rather see the people remove Khamenei and Co. from power. Maybe it will happen. This increase in diplomatic pressure may accomplish just that.

(“pan-Arabic”?? as luc pointed out, Iranians aren’t Arabs)

Ah, if it’s one thing I can count on around here, it’s pedantic superiority complexes. As I pointed out, I am perfectly aware of Iran’s cultural history. I do admit that perhaps “pan-Arabic” was a poorly-chosen term, but hardly poorly-chosen enough to warrant all your false confusion.

Perhaps you’d be more comfortable with “Pan-Islamic?”

Did you go through the whole Iraq war not noticing that Iraq was not a theocracy but a rigorously secular state? The “we’re only fighting theocracy” excuse is already dead in the water.

Did you go through the whole thing without noticing that Hussein constantly and cynically couched the war in terms of jihad and American anti-Islamic agression? Whether Iraq was secular or not (and calling Iraq “secular” is like calling Nazi Germany “secular.” While being factually true, it didn’t really practically matter. Both were dictatorships and driven by personalities.) is irrelevant in this case. If Hussein wanted a secular state, then it was secular. If he wanted to appeal to Islamic fundamentalism, then he could easily switch gears and be as pious as all hell.

And your attempt to simplify my arguments to “we’re only fighting theocracy” are pathetic. It’s not “only” about anything. It’s about a lot of different things. The trouble is that you consider economic interests to be “imperialism.” I consider them to be perfectly valid.

[Ogre]

Ogre: Much as I hate to say it, for the future good of humanity, I don’t think theocracy should be allowed in any nation, as it tends to irrevocably muddle both with the religion and the government, to the detriment of both…not to mention the basic rights of the people.

Well, to some extent I think you have a point, although it pains me to make such an admission in the Pit. However, I think it’s childish folly (ah, that’s better ) to imagine that the US can be successful in unilaterally deciding what will or won’t be “allowed” in other governments. The real threats to democracy and freedom these days, including the threat of terrorism, come not so much from “rogue states” as from weak states. (Why isn’t the Administration talking up an invasion of the theocratic, terrorist-sheltering Saudi Arabia, by the way?)

Diverting the world from theocracy towards democracy is going to require much harder work and much smarter ideas than just stomping into country after country and saying “There! You’re free! Now let’s see some secular democracy around here!”

See, Kimstu, that was a much fairer post, IMHO. Thank you.

I apologize for any incipient snarkiness I displayed in my last one.

THe difference in viewpoints may be attributable to the fact that I think the US shouldn’t have to “go it alone.” I think this is fundamentally a very worthy fight, and I’d really like to see the EU on board with it. After all, they are liberal, Western democracies. On a basic level, the Islamic fundamentalists hate them just as much as they do us.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

So Tee,

>>>What about it?<<<

You apparently think it’s acceptable to have placed these childern in such peril? You think our policy is “on the mark,” according also to D. Rumsfeld? How many of these children have been raped or damaged by the rabble let loose and allowed to pillage by the US military?

What the fuck?

[milroyj]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
Well, you predicted “regime change” there “in six months”. What are you suggesting? Spontaneous popular uprisings? Or uprisings fostered by US influence and funds?

The latter. You have a problem with that?

Which “Islamists”?

The ones who are trying to kill Americans. My theory, such as it is, is that we should strive to kill them first. Do you have a problem with that too?