War with IRAN! No! No! HELL No!

[system]

*Originally posted by Gadarene *
**Michael Ellis:

Here’s an analysis of Francis Fukuyama’s book, which sparked/epitomized the blather to which Collounsbury refers:

The End of History

Disclaimer: I haven’t read over that link thoroughly, so I don’t know if the analysis is biased or otherwise wrongheaded. It looks good at a quick glance, however. **

It’s a very good review.

[furt]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ben *
**It seems to me that the U.S. screws things up so much that I don’t have a lot of faith in their ability to set things right. **

[QUOTE]

Fair enough, and not all that far from my own opinion. My point is that things are already screwed up in most of the Middle East. The fact we are accustomed to the current form of screwed-up-ness (oppression of women, homosexuals, minorities, anti-modernism, anti-semitism, no free speech, no democracy etc) does not make it “OK.” The only question is whether or not the US is capable of making things less screwed up.

**

You know, I’ve heard a lot of comments here about how Hussein was such a horrible, evil person that we absolutely had to get rid of him. Have any of you people denounced Reagan for supporting him? **

Yep, lots of people did. Lots also pointed out that Hussein in the early 80s did not appear as bad as he did a decade later, and that he was seen as the lesser of two evils in a war against the radical missionary brand of Islam emerging in Iran.

[furt]

GARN! *&%#@ coding.

[jjimm]

I really hope that, if this turns into what it’s looking it might turn into, Tony Blair has the balls to go “not this time, George old buddy”.

Fuck. Will someone please kick the Democrats up the ass and get them to field someone halfway decent, for the sake of the rest of the world?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by furt *
**Yep, lots of people did. Lots also pointed out that Hussein in the early 80s did not appear as bad as he did a decade later, and that he was seen as the lesser of two evils in a war against the radical missionary brand of Islam emerging in Iran. **

They knew he was using chemical weapons on civilians. Hell, Rummy, sold the fucker bio weapons. they knew how bad he was, they just didn’t give a shit. It was more important politically for Ronnie Raygun to look like he was tough on Iran. Moral substance was totally irrelevant.

[CBEscapee]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**T Moral substance was totally irrelevant. **

And I think it is safe to say moral substance was totally absent.

[december]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
** they knew how bad he was, they just didn’t give a shit. It was more important politically for Ronnie Raygun to look like he was tough on Iran. Moral substance was totally irrelevant. **

Reagan was immoral for supporting Saddam. Bush 41 was immoral for leaving Saddam in power. Bush 43 was immoral for removing Saddam from power. Got it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by december *
Reagan was immoral for supporting Saddam.

Correct.

Bush 41 was immoral for leaving Saddam in power.

Incorrect. I never said that. The US was culpable only insofar as it offered active support, money, weapons, etc. to Hussein. That’s not the same as saying the US should have attacked the sovereignty of anothet country.

Bush 43 was immoral for removing Saddam from power. Got it.

Correct.

[yojimbo]

Finally

[december]

Here’s an article arguing that Iran is an urgent problem, but that with US encouragement, the Mullahs can be overthrown by internal opposition.

The urgency comes from the situation on the ground. Even the dreamers in the Department of State and the intelligence community could no longer shrug off (or blame on ourselves) the active involvement of the mullahs in the most recent terrorist attacks, their frantic and apparently increasingly successful race to develop an atomic bomb, and their commitment of thousands of men and millions of dollars to sabotage our efforts to bring an orderly and free society to Iraq. The operation in Riyadh was planned in Iran by al Qaeda leaders, notably Said bin Laden (Osama’s son) and Mohammed Shoghi, whose nom de guerre is Abu Khalid Sayef al Adel (which means “the sword of justice”). Three days before the Riyadh attacks, 17 al Qaeda members were quietly moved to the Sistan and Baluchistan areas at the Pakistan border, hoping to conceal the Iranian connection, but it was uncovered anyway.

Inside Iraq, there are thousands of Iranian agents at work: radical Iraqi mullahs who were trained in Iranian mosques since the early 1980s, top officers of the Revolutionary Guards, various thugs and killers, and even the head of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, Ali Panahi, who was dispatched to Karbala to organize the anti-American demonstrations after the fall of Saddam, and then to Baghdad…

For if the United States chooses to give real support to the regime’s opponents, there could well be a replay of the mass demonstrations that led to the fall of Milosevic in Yugoslavia and the Marcoses in the Philippines. If the Bush administration instead falls back on merely repeating the president’s many words of condemnation of the regime and praise for the opposition, the mullahs may survive to kill us yet another day.

It is impossible to win in Iraq or to block the spread of weapons of mass destruction throughout the terror network without bringing down the mullahs. Iran is not only a participant on the other side; it is the heart of the jihadist structure. If we are really serious about winning the war against terrorism, we must defeat Iran. Thus far, we haven’t been serious enough.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The US has no right to meddle with the internal affairs of Iran or any other country.

[system]

Wonderful. The fucking National Review and its benighted misunderstanding of the region and comic book understanding of Iran. Really fucking wonderful.

[Beagle]

It’s not that attacking Iran would be a good idea. It wouldn’t. But, if the mullahs in charge think that the US is willing to take a shot at any government in support of terrorist organizations, I’m not sure that’s necessarily a bad thing. It’s a wonderful negotiating posture to be in. If we don’t use leverage on Iran now we never will.

DtC

The US has no right to meddle with the internal affairs of Iran or any other country.

Been watching too much Star Trek again?

[december]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**Wonderful. The fucking National Review and its benighted misunderstanding of the region and comic book understanding of Iran. Really fucking wonderful. **

Ledeen claims to be an expert on the middle east. It would be helpful if you would explain where Ledeen is wrong.

[ElvisL1ves]

Why not be helpful yourself, and explain where Ledeen is right? It would take less time, and place the burden of fact where it belongs, not on Collounsbury.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Beagle,
It’s against international law to tamper with another country’s sovereignty. there is no special, “Shrub exemption” to this. He doesn’t have the right to try to meddle. That’s a fact.

He can’t even run his own country with any sort of competence, he really shouldn’t be trying to fuck with someone else’s.

[RTFirefly]

Ledeen’s position seems to be that the real danger in Iraq is that Iranian-inspired elements might take over there. Too bad he wasn’t more forceful in arguing that position before the war, when there was no chance of that happening.

[gobear]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**Beagle,
It’s against international law to tamper with another country’s sovereignty. there is no special, “Shrub exemption” to this. He doesn’t have the right to try to meddle. That’s a fact.

He can’t even run his own country with any sort of competence, he really shouldn’t be trying to fuck with someone else’s. **

Bush definitely has no right to interfere with another nation’s sovereignty UNLESS it can be conclusively shown the the leadership of that country is actively supporting Al Qaeda, in which case they need to go.

Mind you, I don’t think that’s the case in Iran, which has been cooperative in hunting down and handing over al Qaeda operatives in their country. Bush would have to come up with a DAMN thorough presentation in order to justify any further military action.

In re the bets y’all are making, perhaps I’m mistaken and Bush is not trying to subvert our democracy. Perhaps.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Iran would have to be doing more than supporting al-Qaeda. It would have to be shown that that the government of Iran (via al-Qaeda or otherwise) posed an imminent threat to the US. That’s going to be an especially hard sell in light of the fact that the Bushistas were dishonest about the threat posed by Iraq.

[gobear]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
Iran would have to be doing more than supporting al-Qaeda. It would have to be shown that that the government of Iran (via al-Qaeda or otherwise) posed an imminent threat to the US.

Speaking only in gneral terms and not about Iran. . . don’t you consider al-Qaeda an imminent threat to the US? Do you require another 9/11 to be carried out on US soil to justify action against them? I don’t know about you,l but I’d prefer to prevent it rather than retaliate.

That’s going to be an especially hard sell in light of the fact that the Bushistas were dishonest about the threat posed by Iraq.

Granted. I still maintain that Hussein was the agent of his well-deserved demise; if he had not played silly bugggers with the UN inspectors, he’d be torturing prisoners and pillaging the treasury this very day.

But as pleased as I may be with Saddam’s fall, Bush predicated the war on the presence of WMDs in Iraq, and so far, Bush appears to have deliberately lied in order to launch what seems to have been a personal vendetta. Bush played me and all the citizens who supported the war for fools.