At what point is a preemptive strike actually justifiable?

[Cecil]

I think that there needs to be a legitimate threat of imminent danger in order for a preemptive invasion to be condonable.

Thus, I think most of us would agree that the American pre-emptive attack on Iraq was not justified by the available intelligence. That is, although Hussein may (big MAY) have had large-scale destructive weaponry, he was most likely not in the process of readying an attack against the US.

But what about when one nation credibly threatens the very existence of another? Several months ago, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm) Since then the Iranians have demonstrated stealth MIRVs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5724651,00.html), the world's fastest sonar-evading torpedo (http://www.tradearabia.com/tanews/newsdetails_snDEF_article103039_cnt.html), stealth hovercrafts (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_14618.shtml), and of course, enriched uranium (http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=irannukes&slug=Uranium+enrichment+successful%3A+Iran&id=86810&callid=1). Now, Ahmadinejad has repeated (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_israel;_ylt=ArjPkocAuh9N95Fm2dTOnwGs0NUE;_ylu =X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--) his threat to annihilate Israel, along with again denying the reality of the Holocaust. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.
...
The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

Question: What would it take for the US (or any other country, for that matter) to justifiably invade? Are there any threats Iran could make that would vindicate a preemptive strike or should aggression be restricted to retaliatory only?

[Kerberos]

I think that there needs to be a legitimate threat of imminent danger in order for a preemptive invasion to be condonable.

Thus, I think most of us would agree that the American pre-emptive attack on Iraq was not justified by the available intelligence. That is, although Hussein may (big MAY) have had large-scale destructive weaponry, he was most likely not in the process of readying an attack against the US.

But what about when one nation credibly threatens the very existence of another? Several months ago, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm) Since then the Iranians have demonstrated stealth MIRVs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5724651,00.html), the world's fastest sonar-evading torpedo (http://www.tradearabia.com/tanews/newsdetails_snDEF_article103039_cnt.html), stealth hovercrafts (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_14618.shtml), and of course, enriched uranium (http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=irannukes&slug=Uranium+enrichment+successful%3A+Iran&id=86810&callid=1). Now, Ahmadinejad has repeated (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_israel;_ylt=ArjPkocAuh9N95Fm2dTOnwGs0NUE;_ylu =X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--) his threat to annihilate Israel, along with again denying the reality of the Holocaust.

Question: What would it take for the US (or any other country, for that matter) to justifiably invade? Are there any threats Iran could make that would vindicate a preemptive strike or should aggression be restricted to retaliatory only?
None of the amazing groundbreaking new systems the Iranian military is supposed to have created have been verified by any party other than Iran itself, and at least for the super-torpedo independent military experts were extremely sceptical of the claim when it was announced. So while we should be concerned over their nuclear program, I don't think you necessarily need to lose sleep over stealth hovercrafts, super-torpedoes and breakthroughs in rocket-technology.

As for the main question I believe that Iran could be deterred, but if the Israelis or the US don't want to run that risk I'd certainly understand that, so yes preventive attacks can definitely be justified.

[Whoracle]

When the administration in charge isn't too incompetent to handle it.

[Zep]

Ummm, just a thought or two.

Even if they existed, what threat are super torpedoes and stealth hovercraft to Israel from Iran? How would they be deployed? Against what? How many of them are there?

The Israelis will likely have no trouble dealing with Iran's threats on their own, the same way they dealt with Iraq in 1981 (http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/A961-Isr.pdf).

The Iranian speech is rhetoric at its most flamboyant. Why people take the letter of such speechs and not their intent so seriously continues to puzzle me.

[Dancing David]

I don't see an eminent threat to the US, that would warrant a strike. Just because someone might try to harm you does not give you the right to harm them.

[Ziggurat]

I think that there needs to be a legitimate threat of imminent danger in order for a preemptive invasion to be condonable.

I don't think this is a very tennable position. Forget for a moment the particulars of Iraq, or Iran, because you don't necessarily need to agree to preemptive strikes on either in order to acknowledge that preemption could be justified even without imminent danger.

Suppose, for example, you knew for certain that an enemy state was preparing nuclear weapons. They were approximately ten years away from getting those weapons, but once they had them, they would use them. Suppose that although we know that they're approximately 10 years away, it could vary from 8 to 12 years before they had the weapons, and we wouldn't be able to tell during that period whether or not they had already aquired nuclear weapons. Furthermore, suppose that it was easy to strike at their nuclear facilities now, but that they would progressively build up air defense capabilities which would make it harder and more costly to strike at those facilities. Is the danger imminent? Not at ten years away, it isn't. But is a strike now justified? I would say, in this hypothetical, that yes it is. Waiting until the threat becomes "imminent" is a mistake in this situation, and we would not know when the threat was actually "imminent" anyways (after 8 years, we couldn't tell if they had the bomb and were about to use it or were 4 years away still).

I understand fully that this hypothetical does NOT represent the situation in Iran or Iraq, and you can agree completely with this assessment and still consider the invasion of Iraq as unwarranted. My point is simply that the concept that a threat MUST be imminent in order to justify a strike in not actually morally or practically tennable. Imminence certainly helps clarify a threat, and may justify taking greater risk, but it is foolish to treat it as an absolute requirement in all cases.

[Ziggurat]

Ummm, just a thought or two.

Even if they existed, what threat are super torpedoes and stealth hovercraft to Israel from Iran? How would they be deployed? Against what? How many of them are there?

The threat isn't against Israel directly, it's against the US navy, as well as potentially the global supply of oil which travels through the Persian gulf. Israel can strike at Iran, but it cannot topple the mullahs - that would take US intervention, and that requires out navy in the Gulf.

Not that I really believe they've got super torpedoes, but that's the issue.

The Israelis will likely have no trouble dealing with Iran's threats on their own, the same way they dealt with Iraq in 1981 (http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/A961-Isr.pdf).

I wish it were that simple. Osiraq was a single above-ground site, whose destruction halted Iraq's program completely. Iran has multiple sites, some of them buried underground, and I'm not even sure if we've identified all of them. Taking out Iran's nuclear weapons program might be within Israeli capabilities, but it won't be nearly as easy for them as Osiraq was.

The Iranian speech is rhetoric at its most flamboyant. Why people take the letter of such speechs and not their intent so seriously continues to puzzle me.

Funny thing, but I find that when people talk about what amounts to genocide against the Jews, it's better to take them at their word. I cannot know for sure what their "intent" was, and trying to divine that as something distinct from what they actually say is like Kremlinology (a doomed attempt to try to extract information from a closed and secretive system, which is more likely to confuse you than give you any insight). But I DO know what they said, and if they don't want me to interpret what they said as meaning what they said, then the answer on their part is quite simple: don't say it. So there's really no reason not to take them at their word when they talk about wiping out Israel.

[Mephisto]

First, I'd like to ask why we (the U.S.) deserve nuclear weapons, but other countries do not? Of course Iran is acting crazy, we've (pre-emptively) invaded Iraq under false pretenses AND we're in Afghanistan. Sounds like Iran talking big is a situation we ourselves created.

It's not much beyond schoolyard politics - we're the bully that pushes people around so to make sure we don't bully the weird kid that is Iran, he starts to act a little psycho when we surround him.

I think we can FINALLY admit that Dubya's "war on terrorism" hasn't made the world a safer place at all!

[Just thinking]

Dancing David: "Just because someone might try to harm you does not give you the right to harm them."

Zep: "Why people take the letter of such speechs and not their intent so seriously continues to puzzle me."

Ziggurat: "Imminence certainly helps clarify a threat, and may justify taking greater risk, but it is foolish to treat it as an absolute requirement in all cases."

Hypothetical ... you are waiting in line to go through a detection screening at an airport and a person in front of you jokingly proclaimes that he has some sort of weapon on his person or in his luggage. Would anyone be supportive of the statements highlighted above in regard to the situation? Would anyone be comfortable if nothing was immediately and pre-emptively done? Without 100% assurance? (Actually it's damn near 0% assurance wise.)

[Just thinking]

When the administration in charge isn't too incompetent to handle it.

Like the Bay of Pigs invasion of Kennedy?

Like increasing US involvement in Viet Nam of Johnson?

Like the helicopter disaster to rescue the Iranian hostages of Carter?

Point: these "failures" can only be seen with 20/20 hindsight. All of history is ripe with "failures".

[Ziggurat]

Hypothetical ... you are waiting in line to go through a detection screening at an airport and a person in front of you jokingly proclaimes that he has some sort of weapon on his person or in his luggage. Would anyone be suportive of the statements highlighted above in regard to the situation? Would anyone be comfortable if nothing was immediately and pre-emptively done?

I'm a little confused. The way you framed this suggests to me that the three highlighted statements support not doing anything during your hypothetical, while you think something should be done. While I agree that something should be done in your hypothetical, and that this conclusion contradicts the first two highlighted statements, I don't think the third statement you highlighted (mine) argues against acting in this case (and I know I didn't intend for it to). Perhaps that wasn't what you meant by comparing the highlighted statements, perhaps you read my statement differently than I intended, or perhaps there's something else I'm just overlooking, so I wanted to ask for clarification.

[BPSCG]

The Iranian speech is rhetoric at its most flamboyant. Why people take the letter of such speechs and not their intent so seriously continues to puzzle me.Well, one thing the Jews have learned the hard way over the last four thousand years is that when someone with weapons says, "Let's kill the Jews," it's prudent to believe he means it, and will try it the minute he thinks he can get away with it.

[Just thinking]

... Perhaps that wasn't what you meant by comparing the highlighted statements, perhaps you read my statement differently than I intended, or perhaps there's something else I'm just overlooking, so I wanted to ask for clarification.

It was your emphasis of in all cases regarding pre-emptive action that I was responding to. Once a threat is made (on any level) there becomes a need for responsible counter action -- it would be foolish to ignore it. You clearly indicated that threats must be imminent in order to respond, yet the situation I described would have little assured imminence, yet I believe that you would support counter action -- even at the risk of jeopardizing the safety of those in the immediate vicinity. So when do verbal claims become enough to be taken seriously? When do physical actions become enough? Who draws the line? And then afterwords are we going to blame those that did draw it, drew it in the wrong place if there were mistakes (and there are almost always mistakes made)?

[Ziggurat]

First, I'd like to ask why we (the U.S.) deserve nuclear weapons, but other countries do not?

"Other countries do not"? That's never been the position of the US. Plenty of other countries have nuclear weapons. A number of our allies have nuclear weapons. And while we would have liked it had the USSR never aquired them (it's simple foolishness to want your enemies as well-armed as you), we never took the position that they could not be allowed to get them. So your question doesn't make any sense to begin with, unless you add a rather critical disclaimer: namely the word "specific", as in "specific other countries".

Now, why does the US think that Iran doesn't deserve nuclear weapons? Well, first off, because they voluntarily agreed not to acquire any, and still nominally abide by that agreement. So in one sense, it's merely about insisting that they abide by their word in act as well as in name.

Second, though, are you really so clueless as to not be able to draw a distinction about what nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime means compared to nuclear weapons in the hands of the US, or (say) France? Do you honestly not see a difference?

Of course Iran is acting crazy, we've (pre-emptively) invaded Iraq under false pretenses AND we're in Afghanistan.

Iran has acted "crazy", violating and disdaining the sovereignty of other nations, on a regular basis since the mullahs came to power. And their clandestine nuclear program started well before Bush even took office. This argument amounts to nothing more than making excuses for them - you've become a useful idiot to them, without even realizing it.

[Ziggurat]

It was your emphasis of in all cases regarding pre-emptive action that I was responding to. Once a threat is made (on any level) there becomes a need for responsible counter action -- it would be foolish to ignore it. You clearly indicated that threats must be imminent in order to respond, yet the situation I described would have little assured imminence, yet I believe that you would support counter action -- even at the risk of jeopardizing the safety of those in the immediate vicinity.

I'm not sure why you read it that way, but I was trying to argue against the use of such categorical, absolute criteria. The point I was trying to convey was precisely the opposite of how you read it, and was instead in agreement with you that there are situations which require action but do not qualify as imminent. That's why I asked for clarification - because it sounded like there was some misinterpretation somewhere, and I wanted to make sure whether it was regarding my original post (which seems to be the case) or whether I was misinterpreting your post (I think I understood it).

If you're still confused as to what I meant before, or don't think what I said earlier does mostly match your position, I would ask that you read through that first post of mine and consider what the minimal changes to my phrasing would be so that you would agree with what I said. That kind of close parsing may either show you where you misinterpreted what I said, or reveal whatever inconsistencies in my writing that gave it a meaning I didn't intend.

[Cain]

The problem with prevention (which is under discussion) is that the logic wraps back around itself. Country A claims it has the authority to pre-empt B; recognizing Country A's national strategic outlook, Country B conspires to pre-empt A's pre-emption, and so on.

Also (and I've just done it here) we shouldn't confuse pre-emption with prevention. Prevention is attacking an enemy while she's still weak (but can pose a credible threat in a few years). Pre-emption is attacking a country right before she strikes (i.e., imminent threat). Saddam was never about to strike(45 minutes away) -- that was completely fabricated. The administration's "gathering threat" claims, incidentally, did not hold up either.

Finally, if we're good moral universalists (Republicans charge the rest of us with moral relativism), then we cannot say that pre-emption/prevention is a uniquely American privilege. Here's where another danger arises, especially in Kashmir situation with India and Pakistan possessing nukes n' all. Russia and China are also fashioning their own "pre-emptive" policies.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, we should not take Iran at their word. This is probably mostly saber-rattling.

Country's often have to "kick some ass" every once in demonstration of military might, projecting power, showing whose boss. This was probably one of the lesser motivations for war. Unfortunately, when opponents see that the mighty United States cannot prevent looting, cannot get electricity running, and cannot stop attacks, then it encourages to view us as a "paper tiger."

[Just thinking]

I'm not sure why you read it that way, but I was trying to argue against the use of such categorical, absolute criteria. The point I was trying to convey was precisely the opposite of how you read it, and was instead in agreement with you that there are situations which require action but do not qualify as imminent.

Ah ... there's the rub. I took the quote in all cases the wrong way, so it was I that was confused.

All clear now -- thank you.

:D

I do however believe the questions I posed are important.

[Rob Lister]

Unfortunately, when opponents see that the mighty United States cannot prevent looting, cannot get electricity running, and cannot stop attacks, then it encourages to view us as a "paper tiger."

But this sentence assumes a country as an intellegent entity: a error in logic. People make such determinations. They can make them wrongly or rightly, depending on their own criteria.

Pick a person. Select his criteria. What might his determination be?

Pick the HMFIC of Iran, for example. Does he think we are a 'paper tiger'?

[Mycroft]

Finally, as mentioned earlier, we should not take Iran at their word. This is probably mostly saber-rattling.

This makes no sense. When someone threatens violence, you should pay very careful attention.


Unfortunately, when opponents see that the mighty United States cannot prevent looting, cannot get electricity running, and cannot stop attacks, then it encourages to view us as a "paper tiger."

Paper tiger: One that is seemingly dangerous and powerful but is in fact timid and weak: “They are paper tigers, weak and indecisive” (Frederick Forsyth).

http://www.answers.com/paper+tiger&r=67

We conquered two nations in response to a terrorist attack. Who is it, exactly; that you believe sees us as a “paper tiger”?

[Mephisto]

"Other countries do not"? That's never been the position of the US. Plenty of other countries have nuclear weapons. A number of our allies have nuclear weapons.

So what we're aiming at instead of assured mutual destruction is the destruction of those we consider our enemies? What makes us any different than Iran?


Now, why does the US think that Iran doesn't deserve nuclear weapons? Well, first off, because they voluntarily agreed not to acquire any,

Didn't we also agree to that deal that limited the attainment of nukular weapons?

"At Bush's urging, Congress voted to lift its 10-year-old ban on research and development of small, "tactical" nukes, bombs ranging up to a third the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. (The differences in the House and Senate bills still must be reconciled.)"

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/07/09/ED237571.DTL
_____

Second, though, are you really so clueless as to not be able to draw a distinction about what nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime means compared to nuclear weapons in the hands of the US, or (say) France? Do you honestly not see a difference?

Of course I don't think it's a great idea that anyone has nukes, but if you look at it from Iran's point of view, you have to admit that it's a tactical move that makes sense. It's not like the world didn't notice that we left North Korea alone to invade Iraq - and found no WMD. I see much of what Iran is doing as posturing and don't consider their nuclear capabilities an immediate threat. If they get "too far" in their technology, I'm sure Israel will take care of the threat - they are, after all, the ones openly threatened.


Iran has acted "crazy", violating and disdaining the sovereignty of other nations, on a regular basis since the mullahs came to power. And their clandestine nuclear program started well before Bush even took office. This argument amounts to nothing more than making excuses for them - you've become a useful idiot to them, without even realizing it.

We certainly not the ones to be pointing fingers about "acting crazy and violating the sovereignty of other nations," are we? And about those mullahs - aren't they in power now because they deposed the Shah whom we supported? Aren't they fundie Muslim because of our meddling in their political affairs in the first place?

And please, Zig - don't call me an idiot. I've know you long enough to have developed a deep respect for you and your tendency to "keep me on my toes." Iran is reacting to a situation we created and it's easily a circumstance we could have foreseen.

You can't walk into a bar, insult a man and then hit him because it looked like he was going to swing at you. There is NO WAY you're defending yourself if you start a fight AND throw the first punch.

[Cain]

This makes no sense. When someone threatens violence, you should pay very careful attention.

What makes no sense is your ability to comprehend text. When someone threatens violence, makes provocative comments, he's seeking attention. And careful attention means recognizing someone wants to say, "Hey I have big d!ck".

Paper tiger: One that is seemingly dangerous and powerful but is in fact timid and weak: “They are paper tigers, weak and indecisive” (Frederick Forsyth).

http://www.answers.com/paper+tiger&r=67

We conquered two nations in response to a terrorist attack. Who is it, exactly; that you believe sees us as a “paper tiger”?

The italicized sentence is the war time propaganda that you've internalized and repeat as unquestioned truth. As for the second sentence, I have a rather simple question: are you familiar with how OBL views the United States? Are you even vaguely familiar with the situation on the ground in Iraq, and the Iraqi insurgency against the occupation?

My good friend Rob Lister's criticism is even more inept:

But this sentence assumes a country as an intellegent entity: a error in logic. People make such determinations. They can make them wrongly or rightly, depending on their own criteria.

Pick a person. Select his criteria. What might his determination be?

I dunno, perhaps it could be based on the crieria that I wrote and you just quoted. Apply to the Iraqi insurgency.

And of course the leader can make an error in judgement. This is probably true for Saddam Hussein who, reportedly (I hate that word), did not believe the United States would really send in ground forces and depose him. But we did. Yay, we're the winnars! You could say, "Oh, that's because Saddam is sooooo irrational. He's mad; totally crazy." Alternatively, one could argue that Saddam perhaps thought the United States would act rationally and not invade because invading is stupid.

Pick the HMFIC of Iran, for example. Does he think we are a 'paper tiger'?

Are you talking about the President of Iran, who made the Holocaust comments? Or the "Supreme Islamic Leader of Iran" (however that title goes)? The leaders are basically daring us to attack. Even though Iranians detest their government, they resent the United States saying they're not allowed to have a bomb. Making comments against Israel, denying the Holocaust, talking about their big d!ck, etc., is way of reasserting national pride. It's what we call a wedge issue and it's a play on identity. "Hey, we know you're dirt poor, but you're a persecuted Christian. We'll keep "under God" in the pledge, and stop homos from marrying." He probably doesn't think the U.S. will attack given the debacle that is Iraq. In the game of geopolitics, Iran is outplaying the U.S.

I wouldn't call these countries "irrational" because they underestimate the power of the United States. As Kenneth Waltz (a conservative neo-realist) points out, the military hegemon in a unipoloar world tends to overestimate their power because it lacks an effective counterbalance. Empires have historically over-extended themselves.

[Mycroft]

What makes no sense is your ability to comprehend text. When someone threatens violence, makes provocative comments, he's seeking attention. And careful attention means recognizing someone wants to say, "Hey I have big d!ck".

You still have failed to provide a good reason not to take them at their word. Nobody starts a war without first providing the rhetoric of war, which is what Iran is doing right now.


The italicized sentence is the war time propaganda that you've internalized and repeat as unquestioned truth...

At the risk of getting into a derail, if the war with Iraq was, as the POTUS claims, about his changed foreign policy after 9/11, it's still in response to a terrorist attack even if Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I'm not saying it's the right policy, but I don't need to in order to say Iraq was conqurered in response to a terrorist attack.

Now, if we could get back to your claims...


...As for the second sentence, I have a rather simple question: are you familiar with how OBL views the United States? Are you even vaguely familiar with the situation on the ground in Iraq, and the Iraqi insurgency against the occupation?


What does that have to do with your claims that the lack of electricity in Iraq causes anyone to view us as a "paper tiger"? Tigers kick @ss, which is what we have done. That we have not rebuilt as much as expected after the fact does not change that.

Do you have any information on how OBL view the world that is not more than three years old?

[Ziggurat]

So what we're aiming at instead of assured mutual destruction is the destruction of those we consider our enemies? What makes us any different than Iran?

Do you really not know what makes us different than Iran? If you don't already know, I don't know what I can say here that would change that, and if you DO already know, this kind of rhetorical strategy of trying to make me spell it out is just a distraction.

And mutually assured destruction as a deterrent was not actually the preferred status between us and the Soviet Union. What we wanted (quite rightly so) and finally got was in fact the destruction of the USSR - MAD was only what we put up with because we couldn't get what we wanted immediately at a price we were willing to pay. It makes no sense to enter back into such a standoff if we aren't forced into it.

Didn't we also agree to that deal that limited the attainment of nukular weapons?

"At Bush's urging, Congress voted to lift its 10-year-old ban on research and development of small, "tactical" nukes, bombs ranging up to a third the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945.

Is this is in any way a violation of any of our treaty obligations? Our government possibly reversing a ban publicly that they decided to impose on themselves is quite a different matter than cheating on treaty obligations with another party in secret.

Of course I don't think it's a great idea that anyone has nukes, but if you look at it from Iran's point of view, you have to admit that it's a tactical move that makes sense.

First off, what you really mean when you say "Iran's point of view" is "the mullahs' point of view". But am I supposed to just accept their plan to aquire nukes because it furthers their goals? Why on earth would I ever do that, when I oppose their goals (becoming the dominant power in the region, spreading their radical interpretation of Islam, weakening the western world, etc)? Don't you oppose the goals of the mullahs? If you don't, then that really is where the breakdown is between you and me. If you do, then it shouldn't matter to you whether or not things make sense from their perspective, you should still be thinking about how best to keep them from getting what they want. So while I understand divergence on how best to achieve that, I'm quite baffled by what looks to me like a desire to not even defend western liberal values in the face of a despotic regime driven by a fascist religious ideology. Quite simply, is it or is it not of some value to you to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

We certainly not the ones to be pointing fingers about "acting crazy and violating the sovereignty of other nations," are we?

Actually, as a matter of fact, we are. I presume you mean that because we invaded Iraq, we can't talk about other countries violating sovereignty. But I do not accept the idea that the sovereignty of a dictatorship is in any meaningful way comparable to that of a democracy (and no, Iran is NOT a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word). So from where I'm sitting, there's a world of difference between our respect for sovereignty and theirs (as in morally meaningful sovereignty, not what the representatives of thugs manage to get written down of paper by UN lawyers).

Iran doesn't even believe in sovereignty the way the west does - it's simply not an important concept to the mullahs, regardless of how often they might resort to it out of convenience for their own protection. They believe in a single religious world order, originating from them, and the "state" of Iran with its current borders is merely an intermediate step along the way in fulfilling that. Who ACTUALLY runs Iran? Is it President Ahmadinejad? No, it is not. It's Khamenei and the other clerics. But Khamenei doesn't treat with heads of state as if they were equal. Other heads of state are treated as equal to Ahmadinejad, who is below Khamenei, because Khamenei (as the religious leader) should rightfully have authority over our leaders as well.

And about those mullahs - aren't they in power now because they deposed the Shah whom we supported? Aren't they fundie Muslim because of our meddling in their political affairs in the first place?

I'm not sure that line of argumentation really leads where you think it leads. Yes, we supported the Shah, mostly because of external, not internal, affairs. We may have looked the other way regarding domestic oppression, and that may have been a mistake, but it was hardly something we were encouraging him to do, and it's arguable that he lost power because he ceased cracking down on opponents. What would have happened had we not supported him? I'm not sure, but I don't see the likely alternatives as having been peachy keen either - and I don't see a line of logic that leads to the conclusion that any lack of support on our part for the Shah could have ensured that radicals wouldn't be able to take over. The two things (our supporting the Shah and the radicals coming to power) occurred in sequence, but I don't see the causative link.

And one nitpick: the mullahs are radicals, but they aren't fundies. Khomeini had some pretty non-fundamentalist ideas about how far his religious authority extended, considering his decrees even more immutable than the Koran - and the mullahs seem to take it seriously, as evidenced by the fact that the fatwa calling for Rushdie's death still stands, and they have stated that they cannot revoke it.

Iran is reacting to a situation we created and it's easily a circumstance we could have foreseen.

You keep saying that, but the sequence of causation simply doesn't make any sense. They started clandestine nuclear activity BEFORE Bush even took office - what, then, was that in response to? Is there no point in history where they are actually responsible for their own actions, but are always merely reacting to whatever circumstances we create?

[Cain]

You still have failed to provide a good reason not to take them at their word. Nobody starts a war without first providing the rhetoric of war, which is what Iran is doing right now.

Yes; I lack a good reason. Historical precedence, the fact that Iran does not exactly ooze credibility; you want to take them at their word, and I'm advising skepticism. Surely, my is hysterically implausible. :rolleyes:

The United States played the same kind of game with our so-called "Patriot" defense system. The war-time propaganda broadcast on CNN would give people the impression that we intercepted 90% of missiles. It was in fact closer to 10%. It doesn't matter, though. Countries are interested in appearing strong, and this is particularly important for a superpower. By projecting fear we do not actually have to engage in combat. This is why Mao called the U.S. (and the USSR) paper tigers; the reality is different than the mystique. Vietnam brought this to bear, and Afghanistan for the Soveit Union.

At the risk of getting into a derail, if the war with Iraq was, as the POTUS claims, about his changed foreign policy after 9/11, it's still in response to a terrorist attack even if Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I'm not saying it's the right policy, but I don't need to in order to say Iraq was conqurered in response to a terrorist attack.

Now, if we could get back to your claims...

Too bad the war architects - Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are on record with going in prior to 9/11. Paul Krugman has a good line about how the administration fixes policy:

When asked to define the economic policy of the Bush administration: "There is no economic policy. That's really important to say. The general modus operandi of the Bushies is that they don't make policies to deal with problems. They use problems to justify things they wanted to do anyway. So there is no policy to deal with the lack of jobs. There really isn't even a policy to deal with terrorism. It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/09/11_krugman.html

What does that have to do with your claims that the lack of electricity in Iraq causes anyone to view us as a "paper tiger"? Tigers kick @ss, which is what we have done. That we have not rebuilt as much as expected after the fact does not change that. Do you have any information on how OBL view the world that is not more than three years old?

The United States failed to provide electricity and failed to secure sites within the country (except for the oil ministry), and failed to secure the country's borders. This is one of the reasons why people said, "hey, you know what, we're probably going to be needing more troops." Instead people realized -- in their formative moments no less -- that the U.S. isn't really all that powerful. Expectations matter.

[Ziggurat]

Yes; I lack a good reason. Historical precedence, the fact that Iran does not exactly ooze credibility; you want to take them at their word, and I'm advising skepticism.

I find them pretty credible: they say they want to kill Jews, and they do it. They say they want Rushdie dead, and while he managed to stay alive by going into hiding, they got one of his translators killed and nearly killed a few others. The only lack of credibility Iran seems to have with regards to threats is their usually limited means in killing the people they want to kill - which is why it makes a lot of sense to take them a whole lot more seriously when they're close to getting a nuclear bomb, which rather removes this limitation.

[Mycroft]

Yes; I lack a good reason. Historical precedence, the fact that Iran does not exactly ooze credibility; you want to take them at their word, and I'm advising skepticism. Surely, my is hysterically implausible. :rolleyes:

Okay, then you can cite historical precedence where leaders of Iran made public statements about wanting to do violence when they really didn't want to?

I'm waiting, let's hear it.

<Irrelevent attempt to derail snipped out>


The United States failed to provide electricity and failed to secure sites within the country (except for the oil ministry), and failed to secure the country's borders. This is one of the reasons why people said, "hey, you know what, we're probably going to be needing more troops." Instead people realized -- in their formative moments no less -- that the U.S. isn't really all that powerful. Expectations matter.

Providing electricity is not a sign of military might. Stomping the government of Saddam Hussein flat in a matter of days is. The other issues you raise may very well be valid criticisms and evidence of poor decision making, but they don't support your claim that it makes the US a "paper tiger."

Do you want to provide better evidence? Or will you just concede that you had a pavlovian response and spat out three-year-old Islamist rhetoric by mistake?

[Ziggurat]

Too bad the war architects - Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are on record with going in prior to 9/11.

So those three people thought that we needed to take care of Saddam permanently even before 9/11, by invasion if necessary. I actually think that basic idea is to their credit - they recognized the problem more clearly than a lot of people did at the time. But Bush is not identical to these people, and there's no reason to think that because they believed it was worth possibly invading Iraq before 9/11 that Bush did too. Nothing about the pre-existence of this opinion by certain members of his administration indicate that Bush's opinions on how to deal with our enemies didn't change in response to 9/11, and there's nothing nefarious, hypocritical, or dishonest required to explain such a change by the president.

[Cain]

Okay, then you can cite historical precedence where leaders of Iran made public statements about wanting to do violence when they really didn't want to?

Not leaders of Iran, you twit. Why? *sigh* Why???? This sort of realism goes back to rich historical texts: Thucidydes, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli.

In the above you're compouding your confusion. Sure, Iran wants to do violence against Israel. No, no, no, it really wants to do violence against Israel. Fine, sure. But they understand that there are consequences, and that it's not a realistic possiblilty. IR 101.

Gosh, I'm just totally crazy for being skeptical of Iran's weapons capabilities. They said they have these wicked cool torpedoes, what more evidence could I possibly want (aside from, you know, actual evidence)? When Saddam says he doesn't have weapons, then he does (Mycroft, RL, and Ziggurat were completely vindicated on that one). When Iran says they have weapon capabilities that have not been independently verified, then they do because they would never, ever exaggerate.

<Irrelevent attempt to derail snipped out>

Hilarious. A supporting example is viewed as an "attempt to derail." Well-played!

Providing electricity is not a sign of military might. Stomping the government of Saddam Hussein flat in a matter of days is. The other issues you raise may very well be valid criticisms and evidence of poor decision making, but they don't support your claim that it makes the US a "paper tiger."

You're failing to grasp the most basic things I've said. When Americans fail to supply enough electricity, fail to provide basic street security (which you seem to consistently overlook -- maybe because it's a war crime), then it undermines American prestige. In terms of "military might", the United States could have theoretically nuked Vietnam -- wiping it off the face of the earth (but there are political ramifications). What's that Calusewitz quote everyone cites? "War is a continuation of politics by other means."

Do you want to provide better evidence? Or will you just concede that you had a pavlovian response and spat out three-year-old Islamist rhetoric by mistake?

What are you babbling about? You mean OBL's appeal to the American public, in light of the fact that a majority supports withdrawal and thinks Iraq was a bad decision after all? His (justified) belief that we're losing in both countries? Please. As Iraq continues to go badly, American prestige is harmed. Things are worse now than one and two years ago. The fact that our forces are bogged down allows a country like Iran to taunt us. Do you seriously think the "Islamist rhetoric" is receding? Al-Qaeda's recruitment is up and American recruitment is down.

Ziggurat- I have to hand it to you. Iran's bounty on a pudgy Indian novelist proves that they have realistic ambitions to attack a nuclear power (and favored ally of the US)? :rolleyes:

I actually think that basic idea is to their credit - they recognized the problem more clearly than a lot of people did at the time.

Yes, and they've done such a wonderful job dealing with that problem -- that is, by making it worse. The insurgency is in now its last throes, Wolfowitz's testimony about troop levels and the cost of war has been vindicated, and Rumsfeld's failure to seriously consider contingency planning has been a catastrophic success. Mission Accomplished.

But Bush is not identical to these people, and there's no reason to think that because they believed it was worth possibly invading Iraq before 9/11 that Bush did too.

Well, Bush, you see, he isn't... how shall I put this... very sophisticated when it comes to domestic policy, let alone foreign affairs. He couldn't name the leader of the world's largest democracy in 2000. Bush has made it very clear that he delegates; listens to the input of his enoromously influential inner circle. See for instance Bush's recent talk at JHU. An articulate young woman asked him a rather straightforward question and Bush stammered, and said he'd have to ask Rummy. When you have a guy who has been intellectually disengaged, doesn't bring any opinions or ideas to the table beyond cliche, then he's independent enough to question the information being fed to him.

[Moochie]

Haven't you figured it out yet?

It's all about money.

M.

[Ziggurat]

Gosh, I'm just totally crazy for being skeptical of Iran's weapons capabilities. They said they have these wicked cool torpedoes, what more evidence could I possibly want (aside from, you know, actual evidence)?

But this isn't about the torpedoes, which I agree likely aren't that impressive. It's about nuclear weapons, something that we know for absolute certainty is within their reach, even if we don't know exactly how far away they are, and even if they're still many years from it. All it takes is enrichment, and we know they can do that, even if only slowly. But they can and will get faster at that if nothing is done.

When Saddam says he doesn't have weapons, then he does (Mycroft, RL, and Ziggurat were completely vindicated on that one).

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't intentional, that you just assumed something about me and what I believe, but this was never really my justification for supporting the invasion of Iraq. It was instead based on the premise that we would not be able to continue sanctions indefinitely, that we could not ensure in the future that we would know if or when Saddam was about to acquire such weapons, and that it was getting harder instead of easier to solve that dilemma the only way we could be absolutely certain he wouldn't get them in the future (namely, remove him from power). Nothing that has transpired since then has altered that logic - the best argument against it is that the cost has been too high, but given that other possible benefits are still in the air (such as can they form a democracy?), those counter-arguments aren't settled yet either.

When Iran says they have weapon capabilities that have not been independently verified, then they do because they would never, ever exaggerate.

The only evidence we're ever going to get that they HAVE nuclear weapons is going to come too late, and they're not claiming to have one anyways, so I'm really not sure why you think this argument is relevant (again, I agree that the torpedoes are a sideshow, and not really relevant).

Ziggurat- I have to hand it to you. Iran's bounty on a pudgy Indian novelist proves that they have realistic ambitions to attack a nuclear power (and favored ally of the US)? :rolleyes:

No, and that was never my point. Next time, reserve your sarcasm for when you actually understand my position. Their death sentence against Rushdie is symptomatic of the disdain they have for the sovereignty of other nations, which is in itself a dangerous thing (9/11 didn't require high-tech weapons). Add in nuclear weapons, and they only become more dangerous. And that additional danger exists whether or not they would use a nuclear weapon in a first strike.

Your phrasing reveals that you haven't even considered this aspect: you say "that they have realistic ambitions to attack a nuclear power" as if they would not risk such a thing, but in point of fact they do that regularly. They attack Israel on a fairly regular basis, using proxy terrorist groups. Israel is constrained in its response, but would strike back directly against Iran if those proxy attacks became sufficiently serious. But a nuclear-armed Iran becomes immune to retaliation for all but the worst terrorist attacks (as in it would probably take a nuclear attack), which is almost a guarantee that they WILL ratchet up the violence they export to a tremendous degree once they have a nuclear deterrent. If you honestly don't think that's a problem, well, I don't know what to say, but if you didn't even consider this aspect then you never understood my position to begin with.

Well, Bush, you see, he isn't... how shall I put this... very sophisticated when it comes to domestic policy, let alone foreign affairs. He couldn't name the leader of the world's largest democracy in 2000. Bush has made it very clear that he delegates; listens to the input of his enoromously influential inner circle.

Yes, and we all know his inner circle consists of no one but Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz (see? I can play the sarcastic counter-factual game too). Look, even if you take the view that Bush just does what his advissors tell him to, he still has to decide which one to listen to, because they really aren't all saying the same thing.

[CapelDodger]

I find them pretty credible: they say they want to kill Jews, and they do it.
What do you base that on? Iran supports Hezbullah, which killed a lot of Israeli soldiers, most of them Jewish as it happens, during the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. Iran doesn't recognise the legitimacy of Israel as a state and backs a one-state solution in Palestine. This is not equivalent to advocating the death of Jews.

[Zep]

The threat isn't against Israel directly, it's against the US navy, as well as potentially the global supply of oil which travels through the Persian gulf. Israel can strike at Iran, but it cannot topple the mullahs - that would take US intervention, and that requires out navy in the Gulf.

Not that I really believe they've got super torpedoes, but that's the issue.Israel doesn't need to take out the mullahs. It only needs to neuter the nuclear and military strike capability. The mullahs would then be in a position much like Baghdad Bob - much big talk, little or no actual threat.

I wish it were that simple. Osiraq was a single above-ground site, whose destruction halted Iraq's program completely. Iran has multiple sites, some of them buried underground, and I'm not even sure if we've identified all of them. Taking out Iran's nuclear weapons program might be within Israeli capabilities, but it won't be nearly as easy for them as Osiraq was.The object would be to neuter the capability, not necessarily destroy everything to do with it. They are a different objectives... For example, Osiraq was a single target building in a complex - destroying just one part of the complex achieved the required goal of emasculating Iraq's nuclear ability.

Funny thing, but I find that when people talk about what amounts to genocide against the Jews, it's better to take them at their word. I cannot know for sure what their "intent" was, and trying to divine that as something distinct from what they actually say is like Kremlinology (a doomed attempt to try to extract information from a closed and secretive system, which is more likely to confuse you than give you any insight). But I DO know what they said, and if they don't want me to interpret what they said as meaning what they said, then the answer on their part is quite simple: don't say it. So there's really no reason not to take them at their word when they talk about wiping out Israel.An important point you overlook is the context of the speeches. To whom are they being made? For what purpose? If this was in the UN Security Council then I would agree with you wholeheartedly, including support for the subsequent reactions. But often these flaming rhetorics are merely local propaganda - little more than football cheers, a sort of brave jingoistic bluff. But if they were asked to "step outside and say that" in the real world then they wouldn't dare. "Big fish in a little pond" syndrome?

ETA: Having read further, "paper tiger" was the term I was trying to remember!

[Ziggurat]

What do you base that on? Iran supports Hezbullah, which killed a lot of Israeli soldiers, most of them Jewish as it happens, during the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. Iran doesn't recognise the legitimacy of Israel as a state and backs a one-state solution in Palestine. This is not equivalent to advocating the death of Jews.

Is your argument that because they don't explicitly call for the death of Jews as such, but only fund and arm other groups that do so, that we shouldn't consider this in effect a declaration that they want to kill Jews? Do you think it's mere coincidence, then, that despite a variety of conflicts between muslims and non-muslims, some of which involve muslim groups claiming oppression by more powerful non-muslim groups (Chechnya, Kashmir, Yugoslavia), only one state involved gets singled out for destruction by Iran for the supposed offenses against fellow muslims? They want to kill Israelis, but that's not so bad because they don't get killed because they're Jewish? Don't mind that holocaust denial conference - it's purely academic, nothing but honest debate, I swear.

[Zep]

Well, one thing the Jews have learned the hard way over the last four thousand years is that when someone with weapons says, "Let's kill the Jews," it's prudent to believe he means it, and will try it the minute he thinks he can get away with it.I know. And I didn't advocate ignoring the problem, or looking the other way, or turning the other cheek. Only that there was no particular need to make a massive response to hollow rhetoric.

And no doubt there's a VERY close eye being kept on this situation from Tel Aviv!

[Ziggurat]

Israel doesn't need to take out the mullahs. It only needs to neuter the nuclear and military strike capability. The mullahs would then be in a position much like Baghdad Bob - much big talk, little or no actual threat.

I'd feel much safer if I knew they could do this for sure, but I don't have your confidence level at this point.

An important point you overlook is the context of the speeches. To whom are they being made? For what purpose? If this was in the UN Security Council then I would agree with you wholeheartedly, including support for the subsequent reactions. But often these flaming rhetorics are merely local propaganda - little more than football cheers, a sort of brave jingoistic bluff.

Mein Kampf was just rhetorics, intended for domestic consumption, until it wasn't. Antisemitism has preceded most of the great ideologically-driven horrors of the last few centuries (the only exceptions have been in Asia or Africa in places where Jews aren't really in the public consciousness). Even if you're right, that this is only intended to fan flames for domestic purposes, does that even matter if it still ignites an ideological fire which leads them to war? Can the mullahs back down even if they want to if the tension and hatred get hot enough? You may feel comfortable dismissing this as unimportant posturing on their part, but I'm not, and I don't think I'm being naive or paranoid. The cost of failing to take such words seriously in the past has been much greater than the cost of taking people at their word.

But if they were asked to "step outside and say that" in the real world then they wouldn't dare.

Not yet, because it could get them in trouble right now. But why not once they have the bomb?

[CapelDodger]

Is your argument that because they don't explicitly call for the death of Jews as such, but only fund and arm other groups that do so, that we shouldn't consider this in effect a declaration that they want to kill Jews?Which groups do you refer to which explicitly declare that they want to kill Jews because they're Jews?

Iran supported - more or less created - Hezbullah to gain influence in Lebanon and to promote themselves as champions of the Shia world. The oppressive Lebanese power (from the Shia point of view) was Maronite Christian, not Jewish. And, after Black September, Sunni Palestinian, funnily enough. The 1982 Israeli invasion, purportedly to drive out the PLO, was initially welcomed by the Shia. When Israeli collusion with certain Maronites became clear eyebrows were raised. And when the Israelis didn't go home after the PLO left suspicions were confirmed. In the end, they had to be driven out.

Do you think it's mere coincidence, then, that despite a variety of conflicts between muslims and non-muslims, some of which involve muslim groups claiming oppression by more powerful non-muslim groups (Chechnya, Kashmir, Yugoslavia), only one state involved gets singled out for destruction by Iran for the supposed offenses against fellow muslims?
Israel is a Western colony in the Middle East. That makes it unique in the region. In fact, when you think about it, there aren't many equivalents to Israel anywhere. Regionally - and Iran has to be included in that - it is recognised as such. In the Western world it isn't recognised nearly as much.

In Yugoslavia, Iran backed Bosnian independence, which meant wiping Yugoslavia off the map. They've never expressed any great commitment to Pakistan's existence. They might call for Russia's withdrawal from Chechnya, which became part of its Empire in the 1840's and 50's after being Ottoman for a good while, but they're hardly going to call for the cancellation of Russia, which has deep roots. As does Iran.

They want to kill Israelis, but that's not so bad because they don't get killed because they're Jewish?
They want to see the demise of Israel. That doesn't mean they want to kill Israelis. What it does mean is that a single, multi-ethnic state would exist in what was the Palestinian Mandate territory after Transjordan was excised (and I see no good reason why Jordan shouldn't be included).
Don't mind that holocaust denial conference - it's purely academic, nothing but honest debate, I swear.
Denying the Holocaust is not equivalent to demanding one. Ahmedinejad sees the Holocaust as an excuse for Israel's existence, and zionists constantly use it for that purpose. Just as they conflate "Israel" and "Jewish". Ahmedinejad knows nothing about ... well, anything, really he's a complete hick, but he finds the Holocaust inconceivable. Just as many European Jews, closer to the scene, did at the time.

Turds such as David Irving deny the Holocaust to rehabilitate Hitler, whom they worship. Ahmedinejad, a good Muslim, would never fall for that kind of thing ...

Has that conference been scheduled yet?

[Cain]

But this isn't about the torpedoes, which I agree likely aren't that impressive. It's about nuclear weapons, something that we know for absolute certainty is within their reach, even if we don't know exactly how far away they are, and even if they're still many years from it. All it takes is enrichment, and we know they can do that, even if only slowly. But they can and will get faster at that if nothing is done.

The most pessimistic estimates place them at five years away. I believe the NIE has it at ten years.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't intentional, that you just assumed something about me and what I believe, but this was never really my justification for supporting the invasion of Iraq. It was instead based on the premise that we would not be able to continue sanctions indefinitely, that we could not ensure in the future that we would know if or when Saddam was about to acquire such weapons, and that it was getting harder instead of easier to solve that dilemma the only way we could be absolutely certain he wouldn't get them in the future (namely, remove him from power). Nothing that has transpired since then has altered that logic - the best argument against it is that the cost has been too high, but given that other possible benefits are still in the air (such as can they form a democracy?), those counter-arguments aren't settled yet either.

Oh, I fully anticipated this sort of response. I'm surprised you didn't urge me to consult the "forum's annals".

The only evidence we're ever going to get that they HAVE nuclear weapons is going to come too late, and they're not claiming to have one anyways, so I'm really not sure why you think this argument is relevant (again, I agree that the torpedoes are a sideshow, and not really relevant).

Now you're talking about Iranian nukes. I suggest you re-read the italicized portion several times realize how meaningless it is. Your emphasis on "HAVE" is charming. In fact, we can assess Iran's weapon capabilities (though not perhaps with as much confidence as we would like). Nevertheless, this is rather meaningless as far as my prior posts are concerned.

No, and that was never my point. Next time, reserve your sarcasm for when you actually understand my position. Their death sentence against Rushdie is symptomatic of the disdain they have for the sovereignty of other nations, which is in itself a dangerous thing (9/11 didn't require high-tech weapons). Add in nuclear weapons, and they only become more dangerous. And that additional danger exists whether or not they would use a nuclear weapon in a first strike.

*sigh* No, I'm afraid my sarcasm was entirely warranted. Using nuclear weapons against another country will ensure their own destruction. Do you see this? Do you see how they see this? You're completely overstating your position. Others have commented, and I won't belabor the point.

Your phrasing reveals that you haven't even considered this aspect: you say "that they have realistic ambitions to attack a nuclear power" as if they would not risk such a thing, but in point of fact they do that regularly. They attack Israel on a fairly regular basis, using proxy terrorist groups. Israel is constrained in its response, but would strike back directly against Iran if those proxy attacks became sufficiently serious. But a nuclear-armed Iran becomes immune to retaliation for all but the worst terrorist attacks (as in it would probably take a nuclear attack), which is almost a guarantee that they WILL ratchet up the violence they export to a tremendous degree once they have a nuclear deterrent. If you honestly don't think that's a problem, well, I don't know what to say, but if you didn't even consider this aspect then you never understood my position to begin with.

Oh, sure. The lesson the Bush administration is teaching is that if you don't have a nuclear weapon, then you better get one! Iraq wasn't close to having a nuke, and it got invaded -- thus futzing up any sort of recognizable incentive structure. Nuclear weapons allow states to become (what Waltz likes to say) "sanctuaries of peace" by deterring enemies.

Yes, and we all know his inner circle consists of no one but Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz (see? I can play the sarcastic counter-factual game too). Look, even if you take the view that Bush just does what his advissors tell him to, he still has to decide which one to listen to, because they really aren't all saying the same thing.

I'm exasperated. I have so many better things to do then get tangled in these ridiculous discussions with know-nothing, tendentious ideologues. Previously it was this discussion about guns that transmogrified into abortion, and now you're talking about things that are theoretically uninteresting (to me) and beyond the purview of my original post. In response to powerful elements in the Bush administration and their pre-9/11 agenda, all you have to say is "Bush hadn't made up his mind, Bush hadn't made up his mind", possibly followed up with "Colin Powell was there, Colin Powell was there". Whatever. Ulimtately our appallingly uninformed, dangerously incompetent president became captive to Cheney's view. The war was ill-concieved, and so it's not much of a surprise that it was also poorly executed. Powell has since admitted that the nuclear threat -- mushroom cloud fantasies -- "that was all Cheney." There's no way to reason with you, as evidenced by your previous comments, and realized in the following thought experiment: suppose Bush always wanted to go into Iraq and used 9/11 as a pretext. In your world view, he's still doing the right thing. If anything, you would have to regard him as being even more perceptive and knowledgable. I quote -- "To their credit", Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney supported attacking Iraq prior to 9/11.

[CapelDodger]

Well, one thing the Jews have learned the hard way over the last four thousand years is that when someone with weapons says, "Let's kill the Jews," it's prudent to believe he means it, and will try it the minute he thinks he can get away with it.
If that were true there wouldn't have been any Jews for several thousand years. Nobody would ever have heard of them, just as they haven't heard about various other minorites that haven't survived. The basis for this sort of idea is Euro-centric, and Jews even survived in Christendom, while Muslims never did. Many Jews still live in Europe, even though they could go to Israel to "serve the Jewish State", as the King Under The Hill recently put it.

This "lachrymose version" of Jewish history irritates me no end, because it obscures the real history and Jewish achievements. Of which Israel is not one.

[Ziggurat]

They want to see the demise of Israel. That doesn't mean they want to kill Israelis. What it does mean is that a single, multi-ethnic state would exist in what was the Palestinian Mandate territory after Transjordan was excised (and I see no good reason why Jordan shouldn't be included).

Yeah, sure. Because Jewish populations in muslim-majority countries have done oh so well over the last 100 years, there's absolutely no reason to think that the formation of such a state, particularly when the Israeli Jews don't want anything of the sort, wouldn't involve killing lots of them. I got a bridge to sell, too. And as for why Jordan shouldn't be included, wow. How about because the Jordanians wouldn't want to be part of that mess? Why do you think Jordan has no interest in reclaiming West Bank territory that they lost to Israel? Maybe because they know there's no upside for them.

[CapelDodger]

Ummm, just a thought or two.

Even if they existed, what threat are super torpedoes and stealth hovercraft to Israel from Iran? How would they be deployed? Against what? How many of them are there?
Talk about Israel is cheap rhetoric, Iran's military-industrial complex takes a practical strategic view. The strategic focus is on the Straits of Hormuz, where a little can mean a lot. Force multiplication by geography. The US can command the air, they can cross but not necessarily command the ground, but how are they under the surface? How good is US intelligence? Do they know the known and the unknown and the known unknowns? US projection of air-power does rather depend on its surface fleet, which has an air bias. Perfectly understandable, especially with the Kamikaze trauma, but that's not an arena the Iranians are competing in. They've chosen an arena where uncertainty comes into play.

[Ziggurat]

*sigh* No, I'm afraid my sarcasm was entirely warranted. Using nuclear weapons against another country will ensure their own destruction. Do you see this? Do you see how they see this? You're completely overstating your position. Others have commented, and I won't belabor the point.

This argument is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that the mere possession of a nuclear weapon allows them to strike at other countries in other ways without fear of retaliation. If Israel suffers a thousand civilian casualties from Iran's terrorist proxies, will they decide to start a nuclear confrontation with Iran? No, they won't. They will only strike back at the proxies, which means that there's no disincentive to Iran not to ratchet up their proxy conflict. And that can continue, on and on again. It will not destroy Israel, but it will be very, very bad for the region.

Oh, sure. The lesson the Bush administration is teaching is that if you don't have a nuclear weapon, then you better get one!

I might care about this argument if Iran hadn't been pursuing nuclear weapons before Bush even ran for president. As it is, it's just buying into an excuse. Dictatorships with expansionist agendas don't need an excuse to want nuclear weapons, the incentive is their because of their OWN nature.

Nuclear weapons allow states to become (what Waltz likes to say) "sanctuaries of peace" by deterring enemies.

Or untouchable exporters of violence. You really think "sanctuaries of peace" would describe Iran with a nuclear weapon?

There's no way to reason with you, as evidenced by your previous comments, and realized in the following thought experiment: suppose Bush always wanted to go into Iraq and used 9/11 as a pretext. In your world view, he's still doing the right thing.

Yes. Because I don't think motives and actions are the same thing. Maybe that's a difference between you and me. Perhaps this wasn't clear, because my posting on the topic was more in defense of Mycroft than Bush, but my decision wouldn't change if Bush did it because of oil, because he had a grudge against Saddam, or because he thought Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. I think the action was right, for my own reasons, and I cannot know and don't ultimately care if Bush's reasons are the same as mine or even rational. I supported the invasion for my own reasons, and Bush's motives don't change mine.

I quote -- "To their credit", Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney supported attacking Iraq prior to 9/11.

In order for me to take this criticism seriously, you would need to argue why my reasons for supporting the invasion of Iraq, which I already gave, were somehow less valid before 9/11 than they were after (and hence, why it wasn't to their credit that they came to the conclusion I eventually reached before I did). That would be what's known as reasoning with me, and not just lecturing me. You obviously don't agree with my reasons for supporting the invasion, but you aren't me, so I don't know why you would expect me to conclude something that only follows if I believed what you believe.

[CapelDodger]

Yeah, sure. Because Jewish populations in muslim-majority countries have done oh so well over the last 100 years ...
Why that period? Would it not be more relevant to talk about the last 60 years, since the establishment of Israel with the coincident expulsion of 700,000 native Middle Easterners into the surrounding countries? Since then, Jewish communities that date back thousands of years have been sorely affected. They played no part in the creation of Israel, which was a purely European nationalist conception that still treats Eastern Jews as a lower caste than the Ashkenazi, but at least not another race, the non-Jews. Or self-hating Jews, race-traitors who deny the legitimacy of Israel, they're the worst of them all.

there's absolutely no reason to think that the formation of such a state, particularly when the Israeli Jews don't want anything of the sort, wouldn't involve killing lots of them. I got a bridge to sell, too. And as for why Jordan shouldn't be included, wow. How about because the Jordanians wouldn't want to be part of that mess? Why do you think Jordan has no interest in reclaiming West Bank territory that they lost to Israel? Maybe because they know there's no upside for them.
So you think Israelis will fight and die to preserve the Jewish State. What does that mean, the Jewish State? Is it religious? Is Israel a state based on religious belief? That's hardly the concept of Herzl, Jabotinsky or Ben Gurion. Is it a race-based state? Didn't that concept go out with the 60's and Martin Luther King?

Israel is an anachronism, it's artificial, was never viable, and will do extremely well to last longer than the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Look at the current political situation in Israel, where the aim of definning the nation's borders 60 years after the nation was acclaimed is still a four-year and difficult task. Once the borders are unilaterally defined Israelis will be able to work out, within the walls and undisturbed, who's a proper Jew and who isn't. That's when

[Zep]

I'd feel much safer if I knew they could do this for sure, but I don't have your confidence level at this point.

Mein Kampf was just rhetorics, intended for domestic consumption, until it wasn't. Antisemitism has preceded most of the great ideologically-driven horrors of the last few centuries (the only exceptions have been in Asia or Africa in places where Jews aren't really in the public consciousness). Even if you're right, that this is only intended to fan flames for domestic purposes, does that even matter if it still ignites an ideological fire which leads them to war? Can the mullahs back down even if they want to if the tension and hatred get hot enough? You may feel comfortable dismissing this as unimportant posturing on their part, but I'm not, and I don't think I'm being naive or paranoid. The cost of failing to take such words seriously in the past has been much greater than the cost of taking people at their word.Don't get me wrong. I have not advocated ignoring or dismissing the situation, or what was said. What I am arguing is to take these speeches not at face value. It's like not taking anecdotal evidence as fact.

For example, your point about how far the mullahs can control what anger they may unleash is far more important than whatever details they may actually threaten in speeches. Of greater importance still would be the population's response to these speeches, and the regional responses as well. Clearly it's a complex situation, and tense.

I think it would be incorrect to say that Mein Kampf was the sole predictor or blueprint of Hitler's subsequent policies in anti-Semitism. The warning flags were up and stuff was going wrong long before then.

Not yet, because it could get them in trouble right now. But why not once they have the bomb?I'll make a $1,000,000 prediction - they won't get any militarily useful atomic weaponry. Things will "happen" that will stop that. Just like in Iraq.

IIRC, Iran also has only a handful of old Russian Kilo-class subs, which I understand stayed at home the last time the US Navy passed the Straits of Hormuz. Doesn't mean they should be dismissed, just that they should not be a barrier to naval operations. But I'm sure the US Naval Intelligence know all about them already...

[peptoabysmal]

So what we're aiming at instead of assured mutual destruction is the destruction of those we consider our enemies? What makes us any different than Iran?
Neither of these is correct. The US hasn't said any nation doesn't have a right to exist, Iran has. Mutually assured destruction only works if both parties care about self preservation more than ideology or religion, can that be said about Iran?

Didn't we also agree to that deal that limited the attainment of nukular weapons?
We do have a deal in an exclusive club that Iran does not belong to.

"At Bush's urging, Congress voted to lift its 10-year-old ban on research and development of small, "tactical" nukes, bombs ranging up to a third the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. (The differences in the House and Senate bills still must be reconciled.)"
Good. The Russians or Chinese have never honored their obligations, but rather used the deal as a way to get ahead in the game. The Russians were recently boasting about some nuclear capability that the US couldn't even dream of.

Of course I don't think it's a great idea that anyone has nukes, but if you look at it from Iran's point of view, you have to admit that it's a tactical move that makes sense. It's not like the world didn't notice that we left North Korea alone to invade Iraq - and found no WMD. I see much of what Iran is doing as posturing and don't consider their nuclear capabilities an immediate threat. If they get "too far" in their technology, I'm sure Israel will take care of the threat - they are, after all, the ones openly threatened.
From Iran's point of view? Doesn't it at all bother you that a government composed of religious extremeists who rants about wiping Israel off them map is seeking nuclear weapons? Oh yeah, I forgot, Iran is claiming to only want to use nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes like power generation. I suppose we should be kissing a$$ with them because they are doing their part to reduce greenhouse emissions.

We certainly not the ones to be pointing fingers about "acting crazy and violating the sovereignty of other nations," are we? And about those mullahs - aren't they in power now because they deposed the Shah whom we supported? Aren't they fundie Muslim because of our meddling in their political affairs in the first place?
... personal comments to zig deleted ...


Do you really feel this guilty for being American and you can look around and think that we have so much malice in our hearts? Fundie Muslim pre-dates the US by a few thousand years btw.

[Mycroft]

Not leaders of Iran, you twit. Why? *sigh* Why???? This sort of realism goes back to rich historical texts: Thucidydes, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli.

Really? I've read Machiavelli and Sun Tzu, and I missed the parts that suggested you piss off your more powerful enemy with inflammatory rhetoric until they attack you when you don't really want a fight. Could you maybe narrow that down to a specific quote for me?


In the above you're compouding your confusion. Sure, Iran wants to do violence against Israel. No, no, no, it really wants to do violence against Israel. Fine, sure. But they understand that there are consequences, and that it's not a realistic possiblilty. IR 101.

And your evidence of this understanding is what, exactly?


Hilarious. A supporting example is viewed as an "attempt to derail." Well-played!

A supporting example of what? Of topics that have nothing to do with your claim the US is perceived as a “paper tiger”.


You're failing to grasp the most basic things I've said. When Americans fail to supply enough electricity, fail to provide basic street security (which you seem to consistently overlook -- maybe because it's a war crime), then it undermines American prestige. In terms of "military might", the United States could have theoretically nuked Vietnam -- wiping it off the face of the earth (but there are political ramifications). What's that Calusewitz quote everyone cites? "War is a continuation of politics by other means."

Prestige compared to whom? The UN? Europe? Saudi Arabia? Saddam Hussein?


What are you babbling about? You mean OBL's appeal to the American public, in light of the fact that a majority supports withdrawal and thinks Iraq was a bad decision after all? His (justified) belief that we're losing in both countries? Please. As Iraq continues to go badly, American prestige is harmed. Things are worse now than one and two years ago. The fact that our forces are bogged down allows a country like Iran to taunt us. Do you seriously think the "Islamist rhetoric" is receding? Al-Qaeda's recruitment is up and American recruitment is down.

I didn’t claim Islamist rhetoric was receding. I claimed the Islamist rhetoric you reflexively spouted was out of date. “Paper tiger” went away with Afghanistan.

[Cain]

Really? I've read Machiavelli and Sun Tzu, and I missed the parts that suggested you piss off your more powerful enemy with inflammatory rhetoric until they attack you when you don't really want a fight. Could you maybe narrow that down to a specific quote for me?


You're being foolish -- and moving the goal posts. People involved in government, even our own government, are capable of recognizing saber rattling. Isn't this the sort of thing you would read about in a Tom Clancy novel? Who has Iran been "pissing off"? Just as we know that what Bush says in public does not matter, our leaders are capable of recognizing demagoguery. If you want to use an extremely recent example, then look no further than Iraq. Hussein would say he had no WMD, but then make these subtle bluffs that they were actually armed. Why? Because he wants credibility within the region. And no, I do not have a citation from the Peloponnesian war off hand. This is basic realism -- the foreign policy outlook of C. Rice.

And your evidence of this understanding is what, exactly?

This is impossibly silly. The problem is not evidence, but your stilted view of the world. You think Muslims are just crazy and suicidal, and that those in charge of Iran are not also political actors who respond to exogenous incentives. Yeah, what's my evidence -- apart from the crazy assumption that they don't want their country decimated.

A supporting example of what? Of topics that have nothing to do with your claim the US is perceived as a “paper tiger”.

An example of a country projecting it's military strength (even if it doesn't have it). It's interesting you would so self-consciously attempt to conflate two separate issues.

Prestige compared to whom? The UN? Europe? Saudi Arabia? Saddam Hussein?

*sigh* My goodness. Just stop. Please stop. "Prestige in the eyes of whom?" you mean to ask. But that's so basic that you might as well move on to the simple why question. Why is prestige important? It's cost-effective when a country can just order others what to do without having to send in military power. When it does send in military power, it should "shock and awe", as an instructive example to other potential enemies. However, when an occupation goes awry, when you show the world that you cannot stomp out a determined insurgency and win the hearts and minds of regular citizens, then you're in for trouble. This happened after Vietnam, and wounded policy makers. Ronald Reagan said we reclaimed some of our glory after invading the awesomely destructive country of Grenada. Bush Sr. said basically the same thing after bombing Iraq in 1991 (a demonstration to the world of our technology).

I didn’t claim Islamist rhetoric was receding. I claimed the Islamist rhetoric you reflexively spouted was out of date. “Paper tiger” went away with Afghanistan.

The juxtaposition here is wonderful: characterizing one of my claims as out of date and then citing Afghanistan as evidence of U.S. might.

Ziggurat:

I might care about this argument if Iran hadn't been pursuing nuclear weapons before Bush even ran for president. As it is, it's just buying into an excuse. Dictatorships with expansionist agendas don't need an excuse to want nuclear weapons, the incentive is their because of their OWN nature.

And you completely omitted the part that dealt with incentives, and the appropriate sticks and carrrots. Yes, of course, Iran is using an excuse. Unfortunately, it's a rather good excuse. As for expansionist policies -- well, that's laughable. Iran's most promising expansionism has been made possible by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Finally, as a general rule, states seek security first. They want nukes to repel possible invaders, not to ceaselessly expand. Finally, they don't need nukes to change the posture of the U.S., just the legitimate threat of obtaining nukes.

Yes. Because I don't think motives and actions are the same thing. Maybe that's a difference between you and me. Perhaps this wasn't clear, because my posting on the topic was more in defense of Mycroft than Bush, but my decision wouldn't change if Bush did it because of oil, because he had a grudge against Saddam, or because he thought Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. I think the action was right, for my own reasons, and I cannot know and don't ultimately care if Bush's reasons are the same as mine or even rational. I supported the invasion for my own reasons, and Bush's motives don't change mine.

So then why move on to this shamefully irrelevant tangent? When someone says the administration grafts its preconceived ideas onto changing circumstances, then you should not bother disputing the charge. Simply say, "right on, brother!" However, even a hard-core consequentialist such as myself recognizes that motives affect actions. If Bush went in purely to control Iraq's oil in the long-term, only bothers securing the oil ministries while looting occurs, is more interested in constructing permanent military bases rather than rebuilding infrastructure, then it's difficult to imagine how I could reconcile those actions with maximum utility.

In order for me to take this criticism seriously, you would need to argue why my reasons for supporting the invasion of Iraq, which I already gave, were somehow less valid before 9/11 than they were after (and hence, why it wasn't to their credit that they came to the conclusion I eventually reached before I did). That would be what's known as reasoning with me, and not just lecturing me. You obviously don't agree with my reasons for supporting the invasion, but you aren't me, so I don't know why you would expect me to conclude something that only follows if I believed what you believe.

Again, if you never found anything objectionable in what I said about the administration's policy-making apparatus, then you never should have objected. But you did, and then performed this elaborate song and dance, wasting my time in the process.

[Ziggurat]

So you think Israelis will fight and die to preserve the Jewish State.

Yes. They've already proven multiple times their willingness AND ability to do so. What magic force of history is going to make that just disappear into thin air?

Israel is an anachronism, it's artificial, was never viable, and will do extremely well to last longer than the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Most of its neighbors are also artificial, and yet nobody talks about how Syria, for example, is doomed to pass away. It's got way more problems than Israel - the religious group in charge there (the Alawite sect) is a minority any way you slice it, and they've got no economy to speak of. So why is Israel in particular singled out for doom? As for viability, they've proven themselves more viable than ANY of their neighbors. Every single neighbor is a weak and ineffective state. Israel is not.

Look at the current political situation in Israel, where the aim of definning the nation's borders 60 years after the nation was acclaimed is still a four-year and difficult task. Once the borders are unilaterally defined Israelis will be able to work out, within the walls and undisturbed, who's a proper Jew and who isn't. That's when

You didn't finish your thought, so I have no idea what silly conclusion you were about to reach. But the funny thing about the border situation: it's lasted this long because Israel was trying to play nice when it never needed to. They've always had the power to decide this unilaterally. And power, in the end, is an infinitely more important factor for viability than any of the other criteria you listed.

[Mephisto]

Oh yeah, I forgot, Iran is claiming to only want to use nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes like power generation. I suppose we should be kissing a$$ with them because they are doing their part to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Well, here is some info that might indicate that the Iranians actually believe all the B.S. that comes out of the U.S. It seems they are only listening to our President regarding the future of nuclear power.

"With high probability, the countries of the world will face a decision between greatly expanded nuclear energy and a greatly reduced standard of living. Unless all countries choose badly, the losers will learn from the winners."

"2006 March: The February Physics Today has an informative article on new nuclear power plant projects. It says "In the US and the UK, governmental preparations are under way that may lead to 15 new reactor orders by 2007." Alas, I fear 2007 is an exaggeration. The article also mentions reactor projects in France, Finland, Japan, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa."

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclearnow.html
________

Bush urges more refineries, nuclear plants

" . . . He also called on the Department of Energy to work with Congress to reduce uncertainty in the licensing process of nuclear power plants."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/27/bush.energy/
__________


Do you really feel this guilty for being American and you can look around and think that we have so much malice in our hearts? Fundie Muslim pre-dates the US by a few thousand years btw.

Who said I feel guilty about being American? If I feel guilty at all it's because the American people weren't bright enough to avoid being duped by a dope. Because of that dope, we've invaded a sovereign country under false pretenses and I'm sure all the neighbors of that country took notice. I'm also pretty sure that the entire world took notice of Bush's call to develop small nuclear weapons (he apparently has some idea in mind for them, don't you think?).

Now if some idiot tramples through your neighborhood waving a gun and talking big (maybe shooting up a few of your neighbors) don't you think another idiot FROM your neighborhood is going to challenge him in some way?

Oh, regarding the fact that fundie Muslims have been around for a few thousand years - why didn't our President (whom I AM embarrassed of) take that into consideration BEFORE he waged his "war on terrorism?"

[Mycroft]

You're being foolish -- and moving the goal posts.

Who’s moving goalposts? You evoke Thucidydes, [sic] Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli because “this sort of realism” goes back to what they’ve written, yet you can’t produce a word written by them to back up your point of view. It kinda leads me to believe you’re full of $hit and just like dropping names because it sounds impressive.


People involved in government, even our own government, are capable of recognizing saber rattling.
You seem to be misusing the term “saber rattling.”

http://www.answers.com/saber+rattling&r=67

There is nothing in the definition that says saber rattling is bluff and bluster, not to be taken seriously.


…This is basic realism -- the foreign policy outlook of C. Rice.
And your evidence is…?


This is impossibly silly. The problem is not evidence, but your stilted view of the world. You think Muslims are just crazy and suicidal, and that those in charge of Iran are not also political actors who respond to exogenous incentives. Yeah, what's my evidence -- apart from the crazy assumption that they don't want their country decimated.

I do not have this view of Iran because I believe Muslims are “just crazy and suicidal” (which I do not believe), I have this view of Iran because I recognize it an oppressive theocracy prone to making irrational decisions. Among them are punishing rape victims for promiscuity and imposing capital punishment on young men who break fast during Ramadan.

What’s impossibly silly is assuming rational motivations with so much evidence of irrational behavior.


An example of a country projecting it's military strength (even if it doesn't have it). It's interesting you would so self-consciously attempt to conflate two separate issues.

Interesting. Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of “conflate”?

Conflate means to bring together; meld or fuse. http://www.answers.com/conflate&r=67

So when I say something is irrelevant, I am doing the exact opposite of conflate; I am instead recognizing the differences and separating the issues.


*sigh* My goodness. Just stop. Please stop. "Prestige in the eyes of whom?" you mean to ask.

No, I meant what I said. Perhaps you are also unaware of the meaning of “prestige”? Let me help:

http://www.answers.com/prestige&r=67

Prestige: The level of respect at which one is regarded by others.

“Level” implies a comparison. If I am at a low level, it implies someone else is at a high level, and vise versa. If the prestige of the United States is low, one should wonder what entity is has a high level of prestige. The government of Saddam Hussein may have had a high level of prestige, (by your measure, it was able to keep order in the streets of Iraq) yet it turned out to be a “paper tiger” falling almost instantly to the US military.

Yet you do raise a valid point, your prestige issue raises many questions. How is prestige measured? Who does the measuring? If different peoples measure in different ways, which standard should we be concerned with? Can we assume that a group hostile to the US will always choose an unfavorable standard to measure by, should we be concerned with their opinion?


However, when an occupation goes awry, when you show the world that you cannot stomp out a determined insurgency and win the hearts and minds of regular citizens, then you're in for trouble.

I wonder if you confuse the “insurgency” with the “regular citizens”?


The juxtaposition here is wonderful: characterizing one of my claims as out of date and then citing Afghanistan as evidence of U.S. might.

Yes. You have yet to justify your “paper tiger” claim. If you believe it has been used by Islamists since Afghanistan, please cite your source.

[CapelDodger]

Yes. They've already proven multiple times their willingness AND ability to do so. What magic force of history is going to make that just disappear into thin air?
The passage of time and the passing of the founding idealists. The dream is already being scaled back for pragmatic reasons - retreat from Southern Lebanon, retreat from Gaza, projected retreat from parts of the West Bank - the East Bank ambition was quietly abandoned long ago. The reality of Israeli society is far from the dream, which was based on long-discredited theories of race and social engineering. People from Western Europe, the Middle East, the US, Russia, North Africa and Ethiopia do not meld seamlessly by virtue of a shared "Jewishness". Nor can their Israel-born offspring be moulded into Ashkenazis, not least because of widespread Ashkenazi attitudes.

People will fight if they're attacked, but how many will rise up to maintain the "Jewish nature" of the State?



Most of its neighbors are also artificial, and yet nobody talks about how Syria, for example, is doomed to pass away.
A state based on Damascus is bound to continue as long as states exist in the region. Damascus has been an economic and political centre for thousands of years, for clear geographical reasons. Palestine has usually been part of its hinterland (apart from Gaza, which is more Egypt-inclined). Lebanon, on the other hand, doesn't look likely to have a long-term future. Nor does Kuwait (traditionally in Basra's hinterland). Talk of Iraq's demise as a nation is commonplace.

It's got way more problems than Israel - the religious group in charge there (the Alawite sect) is a minority any way you slice it, and they've got no economy to speak of. So why is Israel in particular singled out for doom? As for viability, they've proven themselves more viable than ANY of their neighbors. Every single neighbor is a weak and ineffective state. Israel is not.
Jordan's a remarkably stable and effective state, given its (short) history.

Israel is unique in the region in that it is a recently-established colony. "Recent" relative to the deep local history There'll always be a Syria, an Egypt, something in Mesopotamia. The previous Western colonies were the Crusader Kingdoms, and they had no staying power. They had to be maintained artificially, by constant subsidy and recruitment from the outside world. Israel is a familiar story in many ways.


You didn't finish your thought, so I have no idea what silly conclusion you were about to reach. But the funny thing about the border situation: it's lasted this long because Israel was trying to play nice when it never needed to. They've always had the power to decide this unilaterally. And power, in the end, is an infinitely more important factor for viability than any of the other criteria you listed.
Not sure what happened there, late-night editing syndrome probably. "That's when" all attention will turn to the nature of the Jewish State, actual and aspirational, and the vapidity of the notion will become obvious.

Israel set out to establish its projected borders - at the Sinai Desert, the Jordan, the Golan Heights and the Litani River - in 1948. They were unable to achieve them. They made more gains in 1967, but Southern Lebanon had to wait until 1982. They were unable to claim these as their borders because the UN wouldn't let them, and the US wouldn't back them. But they were established de facto if not de jure. Since then there's been a process of retreat, which continues.The facto has changed. Not because Israeli ambitions changed but because they couldn't be achieved.

The borders are being drawn now not only because of external influences but to better define, and thus control, the Israeli population. The settlers are uncomfortably ill-defined in that regard, whereas before they were conveniently ill-defined. It's another sign that the offensive phase is over and the defensive has begun.

[CapelDodger]

Why is there so much talk of pre-emption of Iran nuclear ambitions when there was so little talk of pre-emption of Pakistan's nuclear ambitions before they had The Bomb? Is it, perhaps, because the Hostage Crisis made 'Murricans very aware of Iran whereas they weren't aware of Pakistan before 9/11? Pakistan had The Bomb by then, and there were harsh words about it from the US. All smoothed over now, thankfully.

Pakistan became the modern world's first Islamic State in the 50's, it's not a democracy, it promoted the Taliban as its protege in Afghanistan. tolerated Al-Qaeda, it's permanently unstable, and it's been supporting terrorism in Kashmir since the 80's. It was explicit about its ambitions - The Bomb, which India has had for ages. Yet hardly any fuss was made.

[Luciana]

"Other countries do not"? That's never been the position of the US. Plenty of other countries have nuclear weapons. A number of our allies have nuclear weapons. And while we would have liked it had the USSR never aquired them (it's simple foolishness to want your enemies as well-armed as you), we never took the position that they could not be allowed to get them. So your question doesn't make any sense to begin with, unless you add a rather critical disclaimer: namely the word "specific", as in "specific other countries".

Not quite. In the 1960s and 1970s, the US strongly opposed Brazil's proposal to enrich its own uranium. The US insisted that Brazil should send its locally extracted uranium to be enriched in the US and then brought back to the nuclear plants. That's ridiculous, which country would allow this kind of subordination? And the US proved to be an unreliable supplier after all. Therefore Brazil signed a cooperation treaty with West Germany to have that technology transferred. Even then the US pressured West Germany, which then agreed to not ever share the complete nuclear fuel cycle with other countries.

Brazil had signed the Tlatelolco Treaty, that prohibited nuclear weapons in South America. Brazil never started a war with any country in the past 170 years. Why would the US protest against Brazil having uranium enrichment technology? So, in short, it's not true that the US does not try and interfere with other countries' nuclear programs.

[CapelDodger]

No, I meant what I said. Perhaps you are also unaware of the meaning of “prestige”? Let me help:

http://www.answers.com/prestige&r=67

Prestige: The level of respect at which one is regarded by others.

“Level” implies a comparison. If I am at a low level, it implies someone else is at a high level, and vise versa. If the prestige of the United States is low, one should wonder what entity is has a high level of prestige. The government of Saddam Hussein may have had a high level of prestige, (by your measure, it was able to keep order in the streets of Iraq) yet it turned out to be a “paper tiger” falling almost instantly to the US military.
This is particularly sad sophistry. You choose one definition from three, hang an argument on a word you've plucked from it, and wander off entirely from what is conveyed by the rich word "prestige".

Prestige : Widely recognized prominence, distinction, or importance.

"Widely recognised" is relative to the context. Saddam's power was widely recognised in Iraq as prominent, distinctive and important, as was Al Capone's in Chicago. Iraq's prestige as a military power was not great. They couldn't even beat Iran.

Prestige is a numinous thing, like status and honour. It doesn't necessarily coincide with reality - people "widely recognise" all sorts of crap. Sometimes the sabre is better engaged in rattling than in being drawn and displayed. Metaphorically speaking.

US military prestige was a lot higher before the Iraq imbroglio than it is now. The sabre has been found wanting - it has an edge, but no point.

[CapelDodger]

Brazil had signed the Tlatelolco Treaty, that prohibited nuclear weapons in South America. Brazil never started a war with any country in the past 170 years. Why would the US protest against Brazil having uranium enrichment technology? So, in short, it's not true that the US does not try and interfere with other countries' nuclear programs.
Excellent post. Very educational. 'Murricans seem to have little interest in their neighbours these days. Which is probably good for the neighbours.

[Ziggurat]

So, in short, it's not true that the US does not try and interfere with other countries' nuclear programs.

I think you misunderstood my claim, because that was never my position. A blanket statement was put forward that I thought implied that the US didn't think any other country was entitled to nuclear weapons. And that's clearly not true. I never denied that we have wanted specific countries not to have nuclear weapons - and I suspect there are specific countries you probably think should never be trusted with nukes either. Your complaint here is that we got paranoid regarding Brazil when we had no reason to and strong-armed them without cause. That's entirely possible, and it's not an event which I was previously familiar with, but it's still a different issue than what I was addressing.

[Ziggurat]

'Murricans

Why do you use this, shall we say, colloquialism for Americans? Do you intend insult? If so, why? If not, what DO you intend by it, since it's not a phrase we Americans use to refer to ourselves. Why you you use it instead of Americans? Surely it can't be that it's easier to type than the real word.

[corplinx]

Thus, I think most of us would agree that the American pre-emptive attack on Iraq was not justified by the available intelligence.


Was it a pre-emptive attack?

[Luciana]

Excellent post. Very educational. 'Murricans seem to have little interest in their neighbours these days. Which is probably good for the neighbours.

Oh yes, it is good. When I heard, quite recently, a report about money laundering activities related to terrorrism was believed to have happened in the frontiers of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay... a) I was skeptical. Were they hiding Saddam's WMDs also? and b) I was afraid this would be used to justify American interventionism in that area. And that's old news. I believe South America is better off overall if the US looks into other directions.

[CapelDodger]

Why do you use this, shall we say, colloquialism for Americans? Do you intend insult? If so, why? If not, what DO you intend by it, since it's not a phrase we Americans use to refer to ourselves. Why you you use it instead of Americans? Surely it can't be that it's easier to type than the real word.
It's easier than "US citizens", and USAians was never a goer. I can't find it in me to restrict "American" to citizens of the United States "of America" (a tad presumptious, don't you think?). I use " 'Murrican" because "Yank" has its own problems, and isn't used by 'Murricans. It's entirely neutral, has no implications at all, and is precise.

[Luciana]

I think you misunderstood my claim, because that was never my position. A blanket statement was put forward that I thought implied that the US didn't think any other country was entitled to nuclear weapons. And that's clearly not true. I never denied that we have wanted specific countries not to have nuclear weapons - and I suspect there are specific countries you probably think should never be trusted with nukes either. Your complaint here is that we got paranoid regarding Brazil when we had no reason to and strong-armed them without cause. That's entirely possible, and it's not an event which I was previously familiar with, but it's still a different issue than what I was addressing.

I understood you said it was never US's policy to oppose other countries from having nuclear weapons. And I said the US took effective measures to prevent Brazil from having uranium enrichment. So yes, it's not the same, but my train of thought is quite obvious - if instead of having denied vehemently any desire of having nuclear weapons Brazil had hinted it might build it one day... do you think the US would have remained neutral? I don't think so.

Btw, there are rumours that both Brazil and Argentina started to develop the bomb in the 1980s and only dropped the initiative in the early 1990s. But there is no evidence for this. Some swear it existed, but the final word today is that no one knows or wants to talk about it. Those nukes are like UFO sightings, and you only get blurry pictures.

[CapelDodger]

Oh yes, it is good. When I heard, quite recently, a report about money laundering activities related to terrorrism was believed to have happened in the frontiers of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay... a) I was skeptical. Were they hiding Saddam's WMDs also? and b) I was afraid this would be used to justify American interventionism in that area. And that's old news. I believe South America is better off overall if the US looks into other directions.
The current US adventurism is going to be abandoned sometime soon, and the best hope for Latin America, IMO, is an isolationist reaction. What you don't want is the US retreating across the Oceans to concentrate "on their own back-yard".

The projected fence on the Mexican border is a good sign of isolationist thinking.

[Ziggurat]

I understood you said it was never US's policy to oppose other countries from having nuclear weapons.

No, I mean more than that: I mean that in fact, not just in policy, we have not at any point acted to try to de-nuclearize any of the states classified as nuclear powers under the NPT. It is official US policy to oppose every non-nuclear country bound by the NPT from having nuclear weapons, because that's the position they voluntarily accepted through signing that treaty. The relevant distinction I'm trying to make here isn't between enrichment and nuclear weapons (though that issue has plenty of complexity of its own), but that official US policy towards the right of countries to acquire nuclear weapons is largely driven by the status they voluntarily accepted under the NPT, and that, in contrast to the claim that we oppose other countries having nuclear weapons, we do in fact recognize the right of a number of countries (including Russia and China which we're largely at odds with) to have such weapons.

So yes, it's not the same, but my train of thought is quite obvious - if instead of having denied vehemently any desire of having nuclear weapons Brazil had hinted it might build it one day... do you think the US would have remained neutral? I don't think so.

Nor could we be expected to remain neutral if Brazil or any other country hinted that they would violate a treaty they had with us, which is what Brazil acquiring nuclear weapons would amount to.

[Cain]

Who’s moving goalposts? You evoke Thucidydes, [sic] Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli because “this sort of realism” goes back to what they’ve written, yet you can’t produce a word written by them to back up your point of view. It kinda leads me to believe you’re full of $hit and just like dropping names because it sounds impressive.

Because it's not a controversial claim; posturing is part of international relations. You can disagree with the application, but the not the idea. I would have difficulty citing "transitional fossils" off the top of my head (aside from the "fish with the neck" and the archeoptryx) even though though I know umpteen have been found. I'm not about to go sifting through a text to "prove" something so basic, especially after providing concrete examples.

You seem to be misusing the term “saber rattling.”

http://www.answers.com/saber+rattling&r=67

There is nothing in the definition that says saber rattling is bluff and bluster, not to be taken seriously.

I suggest you look at the example used on your precious site, as well as the first definition. Also, again, consult my original post from which these shameful meanderings have followed.

And your evidence is…?

Oh, this is just ridiculous. I dunno, probably because anyone at all familiar with her opinions and views as an academic, maybe? Again, this is not the sort of thing I want to waste my Sunday discussing -- Rice's self-identification as a realist. As far as I'm concerned, with these types of basic, well-established ideas, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. You can certainly argue that she doesn't act like a realist because she's enabling a disastrous foreign policy, I suppose.


[snipped]


Interesting. Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of “conflate”?

Conflate means to bring together; meld or fuse. http://www.answers.com/conflate&r=67

So when I say something is irrelevant, I am doing the exact opposite of conflate; I am instead recognizing the differences and separating the issues.

Perhaps you should look up "misunderstand"?

The word "conflate" was wholly appropriate; look over the threading. There are a number of different topics under discussion -- not simply this "paper tiger" business. I offered supporting example of how a power would inflate it's military prowess (Iran's questionable torpedoes). You made a comment -- after accusing me of a "thread derail" -- relating my remark to something that was never intended.

[snipped- already discusssed]

Yes. You have yet to justify your “paper tiger” claim. If you believe it has been used by Islamists since Afghanistan, please cite your source.

Which is precisely what I did in my original post -- now bastardized beyond all recognition:

Here's the final paragraph:
Country's often have to "kick some ass" every once in demonstration of military might, projecting power, showing whose boss. This was probably one of the lesser motivations for war. Unfortunately, when opponents see that the mighty United States cannot prevent looting, cannot get electricity running, and cannot stop attacks, then it encourages [them -- specificially, opposition forces in Iraq] to view us as a "paper tiger."

You never for a moment substantively dealt with this claim. I've looked over that entire post. It would be unnecessary (and unseemly) to boast it has "held up marvelously" because it never contained anything too provocative.

[Ziggurat]

It's easier than "US citizens", and USAians was never a goer.

I admit that these don't trip off the tongue very well. Maybe "US-ers"? Not really poetic, but at least it's short.

I can't find it in me to restrict "American" to citizens of the United States "of America" (a tad presumptious, don't you think?).

I don't really think it's presumptuous - whether or not this should be the case, it's become a common label for us all across the globe. I can understand a desire to avoid "American" because it's not technically precise, but your shorthand doesn't really avoid the problem because it's just an abbreviated form of American and so suffers all the same technical imprecision. The only advantage I can see to using the abbreviation instead would be if it were the more widely-used label by tradition, but it isn't in general.

I use " 'Murrican" because "Yank" has its own problems, and isn't used by 'Murricans.

It does get used, but "Yank" can mean a particular subset, so I understand not wanting to use that either.

It's entirely neutral, has no implications at all, and is precise.

But I think the term has acquired a negative implication, usually one of the subject being ignorant and oafish, which is why I questioned your use of it in that post. I accept that you never intended it that way, and I wish I had an alternative term to present to you that you would find just as easy to use, but I would ask you to consider alternative nicknames for us on this side of the pond anyways. I won't go complain to anyone if you don't and I won't bring it up again, because it's not that big a deal, but the term does carry some negative connotations for me.

[Ziggurat]

The current US adventurism is going to be abandoned sometime soon, and the best hope for Latin America, IMO, is an isolationist reaction. What you don't want is the US retreating across the Oceans to concentrate "on their own back-yard".

The projected fence on the Mexican border is a good sign of isolationist thinking.

Decreased US government involvement with Latin America might be a good thing, but trade barriers aren't. Isolationist impulses can bring both. Be careful what you wish for.

[Giz]

This is impossibly silly. The problem is not evidence, but your stilted view of the world. You think Muslims are just crazy and suicidal, and that those in charge of Iran are not also political actors who respond to exogenous incentives. Yeah, what's my evidence -- apart from the crazy assumption that they don't want their country decimated.
.

Sometimes regimes do make miscalculations that get themselves decimated. See Japan circa 1941.

[Luciana]

No, I mean more than that: I mean that in fact, not just in policy, we have not at any point acted to try to de-nuclearize any of the states classified as nuclear powers under the NPT.

The US has tried to keep under strict controls the nuclear programs of both Brazil and Argentina, especifically pressuring other countries to not collaborate in their programs and trying to restrict their access to many stages of the process. When you say de-nuclearize, I agree, but it is not as if the US has not tried to intervene with nuclear programs around the world. Au contraire. Brazil has the full cycle despite US's wishes.


Nor could we be expected to remain neutral if Brazil or any other country hinted that they would violate a treaty they had with us, which is what Brazil acquiring nuclear weapons would amount to.

Also, no. Brazil was bound to a treaty involving Latin American countries, the Tlatelolco treaty. I do not doubt for a second that the US would have kicked and screamed (or threatened to cut cooperation in many areas, raise tariffs, ridicule the country or even threaten to denounce it in the UN... the usual) if Brazil had even hinted it wanted a bomb.

[Ziggurat]

When you say de-nuclearize, I agree, but it is not as if the US has not tried to intervene with nuclear programs around the world.

Yes, you are correct.

Also, no. Brazil was bound to a treaty involving Latin American countries, the Tlatelolco treaty.

I am not familiar with that treaty. But whatever obligations that treaty puts on them, it cannot remove obligations they have under the NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty), a treaty that they did sign along with the United States and much of the rest of the world.

Are you saying you think that this Tlatelolco treaty nullifies my point that the US would and should object if we thought Brazil would violate treaty obligations it had under the NPT? If so, I don't understand why you would think that, and if not, then we're just talking past each other and don't actually have a substantive disagreement on that point.

[Luciana]

I am not familiar with that treaty. But whatever obligations that treaty puts on them, it cannot remove obligations they have under the NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty), a treaty that they did sign along with the United States and much of the rest of the world.

Brazil only signed it much later, in 1997 (ha! thought it was 1992! thanks google saints), exactly because, at that time, it was avoiding to come under the US's pressure, after all, it had signed a treaty (Tlatelolco) stating Brazil would never develop a nuclear weapon.

Are you saying you think that this Tlatelolco treaty nullifies my point that the US would and should object if we thought Brazil would violate treaty obligations it had under the NPT? If so, I don't understand why you would think that, and if not, then we're just talking past each other and don't actually have a substantive disagreement on that point.

No, no, "pacta sunt servanda" is sacred and no country should disrespect a treaty it signed willingly. If it does, it should suffer sanctions. I think my true point - never underestimate US's nosiness in other countries' business.

(yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing!)

On a related note, is the US obeying the NPTs aspects regarding "diminishing number of nuclear weapons"? I don't know (as in "I really don't", not suggesting anything). But then, international law is only for the weak, the US can break this or any other treaty and get away with that.

[Ziggurat]

On a related note, is the US obeying the NPTs aspects regarding "diminishing number of nuclear weapons"? I don't know (as in "I really don't", not suggesting anything). But then, international law is only for the weak, the US can break this or any other treaty and get away with that.

IIRC, our arsenal is down quite a bit from its peak. My understanding of this part of the treaty, though, is that this obligation isn't spelled out in detail (no timelines, no criteria for how much reduction is sufficient, etc.) and is essentially unenforceable even from a legal standpoint. In which case, the double standard isn't so much the US (and the other nuclear powers, BTW) breaking the treaty so much as having made a treaty which favors them to begin with. That's the way of all treaties - those with the upper hand going in get better terms.

[Mycroft]

This is particularly sad sophistry. You choose one definition from three...

Oh bull-crap. Everything I said works just as well with the other two definitions. I quoted just the one for brevity.

For example:

Widely recognized prominence, distinction, or importance: a position of prestige in diplomatic circles. (the part you excluded)

Prominence, distinction and importance are all words that have meaning in comparison to other things. If you have a “position of prestige in diplomatic circles” it implies there are others in those same circles who don’t have the same level, as well some that might exceed your prestige.

Nice try, though.

[Mike B.]

I admit that these don't trip off the tongue very well. Maybe "US-ers"? Not really poetic, but at least it's short.



I don't really think it's presumptuous - whether or not this should be the case, it's become a common label for us all across the globe. I can understand a desire to avoid "American" because it's not technically precise, but your shorthand doesn't really avoid the problem because it's just an abbreviated form of American and so suffers all the same technical imprecision. The only advantage I can see to using the abbreviation instead would be if it were the more widely-used label by tradition, but it isn't in general.



It does get used, but "Yank" can mean a particular subset, so I understand not wanting to use that either.



But I think the term has acquired a negative implication, usually one of the subject being ignorant and oafish, which is why I questioned your use of it in that post. I accept that you never intended it that way, and I wish I had an alternative term to present to you that you would find just as easy to use, but I would ask you to consider alternative nicknames for us on this side of the pond anyways. I won't go complain to anyone if you don't and I won't bring it up again, because it's not that big a deal, but the term does carry some negative connotations for me.


Of course, as you say 'merican has the same problem as American, but hey my guess from past experience you will get the usual bait and switch, answers to arguements nobody made, and his indulgence in his own bigotry. If you don't believe that, check out this quote about 'Mericans from CD:

"You 'Murricans are such rubes ... You don't even realise when you've been played."

Of course, it is "nuetral."

[Ziggurat]

Of course, as you say 'merican has the same problem as American,

I want to note that the term he used is 'Murrican, not 'merican. When intended as an insult, this distinction matters - it becomes a mispronunciation which implies an inability to enunciate correctly on the part of Americans, which in turn is part of the negative connotations of stupidity and oafishness. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt on this, but we'll see.

[Deus Ex Machina]

I understood you said it was never US's policy to oppose other countries from having nuclear weapons. And I said the US took effective measures to prevent Brazil from having uranium enrichment. So yes, it's not the same, but my train of thought is quite obvious - if instead of having denied vehemently any desire of having nuclear weapons Brazil had hinted it might build it one day... do you think the US would have remained neutral? I don't think so.

Btw, there are rumours that both Brazil and Argentina started to develop the bomb in the 1980s and only dropped the initiative in the early 1990s. But there is no evidence for this. Some swear it existed, but the final word today is that no one knows or wants to talk about it. Those nukes are like UFO sightings, and you only get blurry pictures.


it may not be US policy per se but it is certainly policy - its called the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It may "more honour'd in the breach, than the observance" but it nevertheless international policy.

[Grammatron]

Excellent post. Very educational. 'Murricans seem to have little interest in their neighbours these days. Which is probably good for the neighbours.

Evidence?

[Grammatron]

"Other countries do not"? That's never been the position of the US. Plenty of other countries have nuclear weapons. A number of our allies have nuclear weapons. And while we would have liked it had the USSR never aquired them (it's simple foolishness to want your enemies as well-armed as you), we never took the position that they could not be allowed to get them. So your question doesn't make any sense to begin with, unless you add a rather critical disclaimer: namely the word "specific", as in "specific other countries".

Well, Cuba comes up as an example.

US has never been happy with countries who are not on friendly terms having nuclear weapons. And has gone out of its way to stop them many times.

That being said, Iran has agree on its own not to have nukes and in return received certain help. And now, not only they want to build nukes they are threatening neighbors with them in the same breath.

It's insane for people to think it's just words not to be taken seriously.

[Ralph]

Iran doesn't recognise the legitimacy of Israel as a state and backs a one-state solution in Palestine. This is not equivalent to advocating the death of Jews.


I have a hard time not associating words like "annihilate" with "killing lots of people"....

Are the Iranians hard at work on developing a nerf-nuke?

[Beerina]

The United States failed to provide electricity and failed to secure sites within the country (except for the oil ministry), and failed to secure the country's borders. This is one of the reasons why people said, "hey, you know what, we're probably going to be needing more troops." Instead people realized -- in their formative moments no less -- that the U.S. isn't really all that powerful. Expectations matter.

It helped secure cooperation from Libya. That North Korea and now Iran are recalcitrant is more to do with their own internal politics than anything. Which, of course, is what it's all about all along.

[Cain]

Sometimes regimes do make miscalculations that get themselves decimated. See Japan circa 1941.

Indeed. But a misjudgement is rather than different than *wanting* to be decimated.

Beerina writes:

It helped secure cooperation from Libya.

This is certainly the line the Bush administration took. The truth is a little more complicated. Fortunately two scholars from the Brookings Institute had an op-ed in the NYT shortly after Bush's trumpeting, and they put the public turn of events into context by mentioning the secret diplomatic discussions with Libya that had been going on since the Clinton administration. Your line implies that Libya was stubbornly uncoopearative -- until our show of strength. The article is not in my gmail account, but a google search for: ["Diplomacy" "Brookings" "Libya"] returns this op-ed in the Financial Times from Martin Indyk:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

Here's the last paragraph:

The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration's achievement in securing Libya's nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows, Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq.

[CapelDodger]

I don't really think it's presumptuous - whether or not this should be the case, it's become a common label for us all across the globe.
As a 21st level pedant, I am immune to argument ad populum or whatever the term is.

I can understand a desire to avoid "American" because it's not technically precise, but your shorthand doesn't really avoid the problem because it's just an abbreviated form of American and so suffers all the same technical imprecision.
It's actually a neologism, not an abbreviation - the spelling's quite different, and it's no shorter.

The only advantage I can see to using the abbreviation instead would be if it were the more widely-used label by tradition, but it isn't in general.The traditional "Yank" started as a neologism. All traditions start somewhere.

But I think the term has acquired a negative implication, usually one of the subject being ignorant and oafish, which is why I questioned your use of it in that post. I accept that you never intended it that way, and I wish I had an alternative term to present to you that you would find just as easy to use, but I would ask you to consider alternative nicknames for us on this side of the pond anyways. I won't go complain to anyone if you don't and I won't bring it up again, because it's not that big a deal, but the term does carry some negative connotations for me.
It seems quite affectionate to me. (Not like "Amerikan", which is somehow unpleasant.)

So were I to say, for instance, "You 'Murricans are such rubes ... You don't even realise when you've been played" in some context or other, there's no edge to it.

I want to note that the term he used is 'Murrican, not 'merican. When intended as an insult, this distinction matters - it becomes a mispronunciation which implies an inability to enunciate correctly on the part of Americans, which in turn is part of the negative connotations of stupidity and oafishness.
I've nothing against accents and dialects. You 'Murricans don't talk like what we do over here, but neither do we, in the main. There's no "proper" pronunciation.

[CapelDodger]

Decreased US government involvement with Latin America might be a good thing, but trade barriers aren't. Isolationist impulses can bring both. Be careful what you wish for.
Few things are simple but IMO, on balance, US non-interference outweighs increased US trade barriers. The trade barriers on cocaine are damn' high already and it doesn't seem to matter much. :)

[CapelDodger]

Oh bull-crap. Everything I said works just as well with the other two definitions. I quoted just the one for brevity.

For example:

Widely recognized prominence, distinction, or importance: a position of prestige in diplomatic circles. (the part you excluded)

Prominence, distinction and importance are all words that have meaning in comparison to other things. If you have a “position of prestige in diplomatic circles” it implies there are others in those same circles who don’t have the same level, as well some that might exceed your prestige.

Nice try, though.
I excluded the example because it's not part of the definition. (That's why it's italicised, by convention.)
Prestige is not only measured against others, it varies in the individual. A reservoir has a level regardless of any other reservoir. US prestige now can be compared with US prestige as it was in the past. When you say "If the prestige of the United States is low, one should wonder what entity has a high level of prestige" it has no bearing on the reduced prestige of the US. It's not a zero-sum game, lost prestige can just go into the Void.
You ask who measures prestige, and the answer is "The Audience". Prestige is as much about spin and flim-flam as it is about reality.

[CapelDodger]

I have a hard time not associating words like "annihilate" with "killing lots of people"....
Anyone can bring up the word "annihilate". I just did. Do you have a concrete example that worries you?

Are the Iranians hard at work on developing a nerf-nuke?
Sorry, don't get the banter.

[gnome]

I had always taken "Murrican" to be a Bushism. Granted, this assumption came without much thought or research. Am I mistaken?

[Ralph]

Anyone can bring up the word "annihilate". I just did. Do you have a concrete example that worries you?


Sorry, don't get the banter.


Nerf toys......foam rubber replicas of items that in their original,non-foam rubber state would make formidable weapons. Baseball bats,swords,"bullets", and hammers are some examples. Very popular with "Murrican" children.
We like to instill that killer instinct in our kids at an early age.

They are of course relatively harmless.


It relates to your statement I quoted about Iran not really advocating the killing of Jews.

I agree with Grammatron that to dismiss claims of "annilihation" and "wiping Israel off the map" is either insane or incredibly naive given the overall context of the situation.

[CapelDodger]

I agree with Grammatron that to dismiss claims of "annilihation" and "wiping Israel off the map" is either insane or incredibly naive given the overall context of the situation.
Grammatron's reference to "annihilation" I'll look up later. As to "wiping Israel off the map", a map is a diagrammatic representation of a real situation. In this case it would clearly refer to a map of political boundaries. Such a map, and its underlying reality, can surely be changed without mass murder.

[Ralph]

Such a map, and its underlying reality, can surely be changed without mass murder.

Yes it can. I don't think that's what Iran has in mind though.

Do you think that if Iran had the miltary power to invade Israel tomorrow---without fear of retribution from Israel or the US they wouldn't?

[Elind]

I think that there needs to be a legitimate threat of imminent danger in order for a preemptive invasion to be condonable.



:confused: According to....... , you?

[President Bush]

I think that there needs to be a legitimate threat of imminent danger in order for a preemptive invasion to be condonable.
From here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf).

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.
It's OK to take up two spaces parking the Chrysler 300 with the 5.7-liter Hemi. Just don't do that with the Hyundai.

[CapelDodger]

I had always taken "Murrican" to be a Bushism. Granted, this assumption came without much thought or research. Am I mistaken?
There's a large element of that, which is perhaps why the term won't survive the inevitable return of power to the North where it so obviously belongs.

[CapelDodger]

Yes it can. I don't think that's what Iran has in mind though.
On the evidence, I think you think the Iranians want to kill Jews because they're Jews. Best guess. What evidence you're going on I don't know.

Do you think that if Iran had the miltary power to invade Israel tomorrow---without fear of retribution from Israel or the US they wouldn't?
Invasion is not equivalent to annihilation. It also hasn't been a modern Iranian habit. For what that's worth. The glory-days of Iranian imperialism pre-date Islam, and their evocation is associated with the Shah and secularism. On the Islamist side, nothing pre-dating the Prophet is worthy of note. (In Iraq it was the anti-Islamic Ba'athists who promoted Mesopotamia's early greatness as national myths.)

Would the current Iranian regime want young Iranian men exposed to the reality of a Westernised country? Safer to keep them at home, I'd have thought.

What about retribution from the Arabs? The chip on their communal shoulder would get even bigger if the Iranians could achieve what the Arabs tried and failed to do for so long. A reckoning would be called for.

[President Bush]

There's a large element of that, which is perhaps why the term won't survive the inevitable return of power to the North where it so obviously belongs.
Where specifically (http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/map/map.html)?

[CapelDodger]

Where specifically (http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/map/map.html)?Cute. How'd you score?

Specifically to New England, of course. Back where it all started. Morals of the tale told and lessons learnt. California will go its own way, of course, but there are no great conflicts of interest between the North Atlantic seaboard and the Hispano-Pacific region. Quite the opposite.

[President Bush]

Cute. How'd you score?

As any real 'Murrican would do, just let my rottweiler walk on the keyboard.

Got eight right. 'Cause I know how to pronounce the letter "i". And you're right about the word "Yank".

[pjh]

I love how this becomes 'what justification would the americans need to start blowing the crap out of another country'. But you can't go down this path without looking at the other sides point of view.

At what stage based on US threats can Iran justifiably launch a preemptive attack on the US?

Also while on this subject ... given that the US nuked cities in the past (so this must be a justifiable act of war) at what stage based on US threats and posturing would some form on nuclear attack on US cities by Iran be justified?

Once you've decided on the answer to these questions, then apply the same rules to the question of when the US can launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran and you'll get your answer.

[Kerberos]

I love how this becomes 'what justification would the americans need to start blowing the crap out of another country'. But you can't go down this path without looking at the other sides point of view.

At what stage based on US threats can Iran justifiably launch a preemptive attack on the US?

Also while on this subject ... given that the US nuked cities in the past (so this must be a justifiable act of war) at what stage based on US threats and posturing would some form on nuclear attack on US cities by Iran be justified?

When the Americans attack the Iranian Pacific Fleet of course.

Once you've decided on the answer to these questions, then apply the same rules to the question of when the US can launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran and you'll get your answer.
Yep, course there's no difference between dropping a thermo nuclaur device over a major urban center and launching airstrikes against military facilities.

[Mephisto]

Do you think that if Iran had the miltary power to invade Israel tomorrow---without fear of retribution from Israel or the US they wouldn't?

Interesting question. I was just thinking the same about the U.S.

If we had the military power (we MIGHT have had it before Iraq) to invade Iran tomorrow . . . without fear of reprisals from the rest of the Muslim world, wouldn't we also do it?

[pjh]

When the Americans attack the Iranian Pacific Fleet of course.
:)

Yep, course there's no difference between dropping a thermo nuclaur device over a major urban center and launching airstrikes against military facilities.
I'm not arguing their equivalence, I'm arguing that before you decide when a pre-emtive strike *by* your country is justified, you should examine when a pre-emtive strike *on* your country is justified.

If you end up with 2 sets of rules then you need to admit that either you're being a hiprocrite, or that your country/people are somehow special.

The nuclear attack is an example of deciding what types of attacks may or may not be justified.

[Mephisto]

I'm arguing that before you decide when a pre-emtive strike *by* your country is justified, you should examine when a pre-emtive strike *on* your country is justified.

Excellent point, pjh!

I've always used the example of two guys arguing on the street. A pre-emptive strike is NEVER considered appropriate unless the person doing the pre-emptive striking can PROVE that his life was in immediate danger.

You just can't legally punch someone in the face just because you think he might punch you!

(edited to add) Welcome to the forums. :)

[Giz]

Excellent point, pjh!

I've always used the example of two guys arguing on the street. A pre-emptive strike is NEVER considered appropriate unless the person doing the pre-emptive striking can PROVE that his life was in immediate danger.

You just can't legally punch someone in the face just because you think he might punch you!

(edited to add) Welcome to the forums. :)

Say it looks as if the other guy is going for a gun. In fact he's stood around the neighbourhood making rants about how when he gets a gun he'll blow you/your friend away.

At what point does the pre-emptive strike become acceptable? At around the same time it becomes unworkable?

[Ziggurat]

I love how this becomes 'what justification would the americans need to start blowing the crap out of another country'. But you can't go down this path without looking at the other sides point of view.

At what stage based on US threats can Iran justifiably launch a preemptive attack on the US?

Looking at an issue from multiple perspectives makes sense. But it doesn't make sense to assume that all perspectives are equivalent, and without that assumption, your questions really aren't nearly as important or relevant as you seem to think.

In this case, I cannot consider the Iranian regime's existence to be justified. It is not. It is a totalitarian, violent and cruel regime which has harmed the people it claims to represent far more than it has helped them. From the perspective of the mullahs, preemptive attacks will become justified if they prevent the regime from being toppled. But I'm not them, and I want them toppled. I care about whether or not they WOULD do that, I care about how we could stop them from doing such a thing, and I care about how we would respond if they ever did. But I most certainly do NOT care about how they would or would not justify something like that to themselves.

The conditions under which I WOULD consider preemptive strikes by them against us as being justified are so hypothetical (such as their government being an enlightened democracy and ours being a repressive theocracy) that they have no practical relevance to the current situation.

[Ziggurat]

I've always used the example of two guys arguing on the street. A pre-emptive strike is NEVER considered appropriate unless the person doing the pre-emptive striking can PROVE that his life was in immediate danger.

You just can't legally punch someone in the face just because you think he might punch you!

On the level of analogy with individuals, why does it have to be your life that's in immediate danger, if the preemptive strike your contemplating doesn't take life?

Furthermore, at the level of nations, it's just plain stupid policy, and no country in the world has ever, will ever, or should ever bind themselves to so narrow and restricted a criteria. For example, how do you define "immediate"? There is no operational definition for the word in this context which makes any sense. If the likely attack is going to be in one day, is that immediate? What about one year? Where's the dividing line? If the likely attack is going to come far enough in the future that it isn't considered an immediate threat, why should a country necessarily have to wait for it to become immediate? What if waiting for it to become immediate raises the cost for both the country doing the preemptive strike AND the country getting hit by the preemptive strike - does it really make sense to wait under those conditions?

It's one thing to say that the immediacy of a threat justifies taking greater risks (and preemptive strikes are risky), but it's quite another to make it a categorical requirement in all cases. Your criteria are undefined, unworkable, and don't even provide any moral advantage.

[CapelDodger]

Say it looks as if the other guy is going for a gun. In fact he's stood around the neighbourhood making rants about how when he gets a gun he'll blow you/your friend away.
Fortunately Iran doesn't have The Bomb, insists it has no intention of getting one, and isn't threatening to blow anybody away with what they haven't got and aren't trying to get. So, by this analogy, they should be safe.

[Belz...]

But I do not accept the idea that the sovereignty of a dictatorship is in any meaningful way comparable to that of a democracy

Why the hell not ?

[Giz]

Why the hell not ?

Because morally the right of soveriegnty derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic cermony... uh, I mean, not from the barrel of a gun.

When a countries soveriegnty is violated (you can think of Iraq here if you want), I'd judge the 'righteousness' on two points:

1) The practical: an amoral 'ends justify the means' measure of whether the situation will end up better for the intervention, than without it.

2) The moral: If the country was a functioning democracy then we would have thwarted the wishes and self determination of x million people. If it was a dictatorship then we have thwarted ONE man's freedom of action, and in the process perhaps liberated many millions of his subjects. In such a situation it might be more accurate to say that an intervention has created national soveriegnty for 20 million people where non existed before.

[Ziggurat]

Why the hell not ?

Sovereignty for a dictatorship means that the dictator can do whatever he wants to his people (which generally means putting the screws to them) without outside interference.

Sovereignty for a democracy means that the people of that democracy are not governed or controlled by external forces to which they have no recourse, but only by a government in which they do have a say.

That's a world of difference, from where I'm sitting. Your phrasing ("Why the hell not?" rather than simply "Why not?") suggests that you disagree, that you consider the ability of a dictator to decide the fate of his country to be somehow equal to the ability of a population to decide its own fate. Would you care to clarify your position on the matter?

[gnome]

The question becomes whether it is better for the world to establish a precedent of countries respecting each others' borders, even if some are not democracies, than to forego that to reserve the right to invade anyone whose government we do not recognize.

I'm not sure which side i'm on.

[Giz]

The question becomes whether it is better for the world to establish a precedent of countries respecting each others' borders, even if some are not democracies, than to forego that to reserve the right to invade anyone whose government we do not recognize.

I'm not sure which side i'm on.

I'd find that view more compelling if I thought there was a snowflakes chance in hell that dictators would find the lack of precedents half as constraining as democracies would.

[Ziggurat]

The question becomes whether it is better for the world to establish a precedent of countries respecting each others' borders, even if some are not democracies, than to forego that to reserve the right to invade anyone whose government we do not recognize.

I'm not sure which side i'm on.

Let me propose a different, though related, question: should democratic countries consider the sovereignty of other democratic countries to be more important and inviolable than the sovereignty of non-democratic countries? I've got absolutely no problem with that.

[CapelDodger]

The question becomes whether it is better for the world to establish a precedent of countries respecting each others' borders, even if some are not democracies, than to forego that to reserve the right to invade anyone whose government we do not recognize.

I'm not sure which side i'm on.
One problem is how "the world" can establish anything when it's divided into hundreds of sovereignties (I'm not sure of the exact current count, I lost track in the 90's when they were springing up all over). The UN was founded on a principle that all sovereignties are equivalent and absolute, and that nothing - including the UN - supercedes sovereignty. It couldn't have got off the ground on any other basis.

It has evolved since, but slowly. Sovereign acts which do not impinge on other sovereignties are no business of the UN unless they can be classed as genocidal. That's progress (although genocide is ill-defined).

Should the UN, or "the world" in some other guise, impose certain minimum standards of human rights on sovereign governments? That's a can of worms opened on a slippery slope. What's next to be judged, trade policies?

Personally, I'm in a favour of an international body that does indeed impose minimum standards, actively over-riding sovereignty. Much as the Johnson administration did in the Southern states. Perhaps the UN could become, in time, such a body but there's a lot of work needs doing.

[CapelDodger]

Let me propose a different, though related, question: should democratic countries consider the sovereignty of other democratic countries to be more important and inviolable than the sovereignty of non-democratic countries? I've got absolutely no problem with that.
Dragging the discussion back to pre-emption, if it's justified by a threat the political system of the target is irrelevant. (It might be relevant when calculating the threat.)

[Ralph]

Excellent point, pjh!

I've always used the example of two guys arguing on the street. A pre-emptive strike is NEVER considered appropriate unless the person doing the pre-emptive striking can PROVE that his life was in immediate danger.

You just can't legally punch someone in the face just because you think he might punch you!

(edited to add) Welcome to the forums. :)


As a handgun owner....you're probably familiar with the Tueller Drill.

It takes about 1.5 seconds for a reasonaby competent shooter to put 2 rounds into a target at 7 yards.

It takes about the same 1.5 seconds for a knife-wielding attacker to cover that same 7 yards.

Normally-gun beats knife--UNLESS the guy with the gun lets the guy with the knife get within that 7 yard range.

If you shoot too early--you could be charged with murder yourself. Shoot too late--and it could cost you your own life.

Once Iran has developed them...I'd think it would then be too late to stop them. Eventually they'll develop a missle that could reach the US (although there's always "delivery via terrorist") and they could play MX style "hide the missle" and probably always be in a position to subject the US to the loss of several large cities.

You have to make a judgement call on that guy with a knife that MIGHT--or might not be a threat.

If's he's acting crazy & in a threatening manner (like Iran)---do you risk letting him inside that 7 yard zone---where it it's too late to stop him no matter what?

[CapelDodger]

Once Iran has developed them...I'd think it would then be too late to stop them. Eventually they'll develop a missle that could reach the US (although there's always "delivery via terrorist") and they could play MX style "hide the missle" and probably always be in a position to subject the US to the loss of several large cities.
How is Pakistan different from Iran? Pakistan was the first modern Islamic state, is clearly a failed state currently ruled by the military, announced its intensions of building The Bomb and subsequently built it, was the sponsor of the Taliban and indulged Al-Qaeda, and has facilitated terrorism in Kashmir for decades. It has missile technology from North Korea and its own technological resources. Did it not slip inside the 7-yard zone a while back?

One difference is that Iran denies that it has a nuclear weapons program.

You have to make a judgement call on that guy with a knife that MIGHT--or might not be a threat.
At least Iran doesn't have a knife.

If's he's acting crazy & in a threatening manner (like Iran)---do you risk letting him inside that 7 yard zone---where it it's too late to stop him no matter what?
Isn't it too late to stop Pakistan? Where in the real world, right now, are nuclear weapons closer to the hands of Islamist millenarians? What's the average life-span of a Pakistani regime? Why the obsession with what Iran might do ten years down the line?

[Mycroft]

How is Pakistan different from Iran?

Great question! How about a few more?

How comfortable are you with Pakistan having nukes?

If you could go back in time and stop them from building them, wouldn't you?

Is the region better off with just Pakistan having nukes? Or Pakistan and Iran?

[CapelDodger]

Great question! How about a few more?

How comfortable are you with Pakistan having nukes?

If you could go back in time and stop them from building them, wouldn't you?

Is the region better off with just Pakistan having nukes? Or Pakistan and Iran?
As a child of the 50's, I'm not comfortable with The Bomb. Could I rewrite physics to preclude them, I would. I'm not less comfortable now that Pakistan has The Bomb, that was close to inevitable once India had one way back. If I could go back in time and make a difference, there never would have been a Pakistan.

As to your last non-answer, is the world better off with only Pakistan having nukes? Or Pakistan and Israel?

[Mycroft]

As a child of the 50's, I'm not comfortable with The Bomb. Could I rewrite physics to preclude them, I would. I'm not less comfortable now that Pakistan has The Bomb, that was close to inevitable once India had one way back. If I could go back in time and make a difference, there never would have been a Pakistan.

Oh yawn. You can’t rewrite the laws of physics, oh dear, how terrible, how cruel the world is.

Of course, the question asked wasn’t if you could rewrite physics or un-make Pakistan, but if, given the chance, if you would have prevented Pakistan from building the bomb. You know, like today we have the opportunity to prevent Iran from doing so?


As to your last non-answer, is the world better off with only Pakistan having nukes? Or Pakistan and Israel?

That’s lovely sophistry and I’m sure I’m supposed to feel it’s keen poignant bite, but I remember when you first mentioned Pakistan you raised some specific issues about that country that seemed to be important issues that just don’t apply to Israel:

”…Pakistan was the first modern Islamic state, is clearly a failed state currently ruled by the military, announced its intensions of building The Bomb and subsequently built it, was the sponsor of the Taliban and indulged Al-Qaeda, and has facilitated terrorism in Kashmir for decades. It has missile technology from North Korea and its own technological resources. Did it not slip inside the 7-yard zone a while back?”

I don’t see the parallels with Pakistan and Israel. Maybe with the missile technology, but the “7-yard zone” implies it might be a danger, for which there is no evidence.

So let me ask you again; Is the region better off with just Pakistan having nukes? Or Pakistan and Iran?

[Belz...]

Because morally the right of soveriegnty derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic cermony... uh, I mean, not from the barrel of a gun.

Uh-huh. So a democratic government has the absolute right to invade autocratic countries and blast 'em all to bits because they don't have a mandate from the masses ?

Don't misunderstand me. I think there are plenty of reasons to topple many a dictatorship. Because of what they DO. But JUST because they're not democraties ? Isn't that taking it a little far ?

[Belz...]

That's a world of difference, from where I'm sitting. Your phrasing ("Why the hell not?" rather than simply "Why not?") suggests that you disagree,

Nah, I just like to say "hell" whenever I can.

[Belz...]

As a child of the 50's, I'm not comfortable with The Bomb. Could I rewrite physics to preclude them, I would.

Wouldn't russia and the US have gone to war after WWII without that threat ?

[Kerberos]

Wouldn't russia and the US have gone to war after WWII without that threat ?
that's quite possible, but obviously not certain. that's really the dillemma of the Bomb, it help prevents war, but it also opens the door to armegeddon. Given the choice I don't think I'd allow nuclear bombs to exist either, despite the benefits.

[gnome]

(derail) Once again I can't help but feel depressed at the post-Cold War world. I used to think that once we could get over the insane nuclear standoff with Russia, we could go about moving into the fabled "future" and start building our hovercars, robots, and interstellar spaceships and such :)

[Ralph]

How is Pakistan different from Iran? Pakistan was the first modern Islamic state, is clearly a failed state currently ruled by the military, announced its intensions of building The Bomb and subsequently built it, was the sponsor of the Taliban and indulged Al-Qaeda, and has facilitated terrorism in Kashmir for decades. It has missile technology from North Korea and its own technological resources. Did it not slip inside the 7-yard zone a while back?

One difference is that Iran denies that it has a nuclear weapons program.


At least Iran doesn't have a knife.


Isn't it too late to stop Pakistan? Where in the real world, right now, are nuclear weapons closer to the hands of Islamist millenarians? What's the average life-span of a Pakistani regime? Why the obsession with what Iran might do ten years down the line?


I think there's a huge difference between Iran & Pakistan.

Cops don't shoot everybody they see who's acting in a "possibly threatening" manner. There are many obvious negative consequnces to doing that.

They have to make some very tough decisions as to who's just bluffing....and who's a genuine threat.

Yes-there's concern about Pakistan.....but so far they haven't acted in a manner that warrants force being used against them. If Islamic fundies topple Mushareef that might change things and I suspect India may decide to take action should that ever occur.

At the moment though...Pakistan bears watching--but not "being shot".

Not being psychic of course how does the cop decide between bluff & threat.

I'd guess he has to go by the demeanor of the potential assailant. Is he muttering crazy things under his breath (like "The holocaust is a myth). Is he acting aggressively (like threating to annihilate others merely for existing.)
Is he threating to actually commit a violent act ( like stating that nuking Israel would be worth losing some Iranian cities and winning a Pyhrric victory.)

Of course as the threat approaches that magic 7 yard mark---tensions escalate. If the cop was wrong - once that 7 yard mark is passed--he could be dead---even if he does pull his weapon & shoot.

At any rate--because Pakistan has them is certainly no arguement that Iran should too.

[Ziggurat]

Uh-huh. So a democratic government has the absolute right to invade autocratic countries and blast 'em all to bits because they don't have a mandate from the masses ?

Don't misunderstand me. I think there are plenty of reasons to topple many a dictatorship. Because of what they DO. But JUST because they're not democraties ? Isn't that taking it a little far ?

It is taking things a little far, which is why nobody proposed that. I'm not claiming democracies have free reign to do whatever they want to non-democratic countries. Of course they don't. There still has to be some justification FOR an action against a dictatorship - that sovereignty cannot be used as an argument against interference doesn't mean that other arguments against such interference don't exist. In the hypothetical example above, the fact that innocent civilians would get blasted to bits is an argument against interference, and so it's not justified unless it's outweighed by some other concern. If your concern is that disregarding sovereignty of dictatorships means complete open season against them, it doesn't. It does, however, mean that they shouldn't get the same respect, deference, and guarantees of safety that democracies get.

[CapelDodger]

Wouldn't russia and the US have gone to war after WWII without that threat ?
To the extent that certainty is possible, no, they wouldn't. The leadership on both sides, for some decades on, had direct experience of conventional war on that sort of scale. That was enough to dissuade them. What could possibly be gained that would justify such cost?

[gnome]

To the extent that certainty is possible, no, they wouldn't. The leadership on both sides, for some decades on, had direct experience of conventional war on that sort of scale. That was enough to dissuade them. What could possibly be gained that would justify such cost?

Without nuclear weapons, I don't know if Russia could have had the resources for another war--after all, weren't they projected to endure devastating losses invading Japan?

[CapelDodger]

Yes-there's concern about Pakistan.....but so far they haven't acted in a manner that warrants force being used against them. If Islamic fundies topple Mushareef that might change things and I suspect India may decide to take action should that ever occur.
They smiled benignly on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Didn't that, in retrospect, warrant force being used against them? In the spirit of pre-emption, is it a good idea to wait for the Islamists who are a powerful force in Pakistan to take over? The Pakistani Army itself was Islamicised (?) under General Zia ul-Haq. If Musharraf dies - and there's been no lack of effort in that direction - anything could happen.

Is he acting aggressively (like threating to annihilate others merely for existing.)
Is he threating to actually commit a violent act ( like stating that nuking Israel would be worth losing some Iranian cities and winning a Pyhrric victory.)How does this apply to Iran? (I may have missed some statements, I've been busy on other stuff.) The second bit sounds like something a Chinese general said recently regarding Taiwan.

At any rate--because Pakistan has them is certainly no arguement that Iran should too.It is for their Iranian neighbours.

My point is that the almost hysterical response to the prospects of an Iranian Bomb is wildly different from the response to Pakistan's nuclear program which they made no real effort to conceal, and I wonder why.

[Ziggurat]

My point is that the almost hysterical response to the prospects of an Iranian Bomb is wildly different from the response to Pakistan's nuclear program which they made no real effort to conceal, and I wonder why.

But Pakistan and Iran are NOT equivalent, despite whatever superficial similarities you'd like to draw, so no reason the response SHOULD be the same. If you want to argue that our response to Pakistan acquiring nukes was insufficient, fine, do so. But you haven't, and I suspect you don't really want to either.

And you're wrong: Pakistan DID conceal their efforts, and quite successfully. They caught us totally off guard (much to the embarassment of the CIA) when they detonated their first nuke. The reason their secrecy didn't become such an ISSUE for the US was that 1) most Pakistanis don't chant "death to America!" on a regular basis, 2) they never had any treaty obligations that were violated by developing nuclear weapons, since they never signed the NPT, and 3) our government, having failed to notice the program beforehand, wasn't keen on emphasising that failure.

[Ralph]

They smiled benignly on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Didn't that, in retrospect, warrant force being used against them? In the spirit of pre-emption, is it a good idea to wait for the Islamists who are a powerful force in Pakistan to take over? The Pakistani Army itself was Islamicised (?) under General Zia ul-Haq. If Musharraf dies - and there's been no lack of effort in that direction - anything could happen.

How does this apply to Iran? (I may have missed some statements, I've been busy on other stuff.) The second bit sounds like something a Chinese general said recently regarding Taiwan.

It is for their Iranian neighbours.

My point is that the almost hysterical response to the prospects of an Iranian Bomb is wildly different from the response to Pakistan's nuclear program which they made no real effort to conceal, and I wonder why.


I'm not trying to suggest that my Tueller drill analogy is analogous to whether or not Iran has a knife.

I'm using it to represent a line---which if crossed - allows a possible threat to inflict severe or fatal injury upon someone--no matter what the victim decides to do at that point.

If the cops confront a man with a sword who's just standing there and he's 100 feet away they won't shoot him. If he starts using threatening language but keeps his distance...they still won't shoot him. They probably will start urging him to drop his weapon though.

If he doesn't...and continues to move closer----the cops still won't shoot---but they may decide to unholster their weapons. When he moves to within 50 feet the cops STILL have the upper hand. They don't HAVE to shoot him yet since they could still put him down at that range without endangering themselves.

If they decide to let him inside that 7 yard circle though--they've lost control.
The man with the sword now has it within his power to kill the man with the gun.

I believe Iran wants the same thing. A nuclear arsenal will allow them to inflict severe or even lethal damage on the "cop" (or US). I'm sure they are betting if faced with loss of one or more cities the US would abandon Israel.

They have allready OPENLY STATED their willingness to sacrifice Iranian lives for Jewish ones if that's what it takes to ANNIHILATE Israel.

You talk as if it's perfectly reasonable for the Jews to just quietly pack up & leave Israel. That's not going to happen.

As far as Pakistan--I agree with most of what you say about it. It was a mistake.....so hopefully we won't make the same mistake twice.

Aren't you the slightest bit bothered by the rhetoric coming out of Iran? They are now claiming they are perfectly willing to share their nuclear know-how with other Islamic countrys. Do you really think this won't eventually end in catastrophe?

[Mephisto]

Say it looks as if the other guy is going for a gun. In fact he's stood around the neighbourhood making rants about how when he gets a gun he'll blow you/your friend away.

At what point does the pre-emptive strike become acceptable? At around the same time it becomes unworkable?

Well, . . . all I can say is you'd better make damn sure he's got some WMD in his coat pocket. You're going to look pretty stupid (like someone we all know) when you attack first because YOU THINK he's got a weapon and then the police find out YOU were the one who initiated violence.

Your last statement is really laughable! Perhaps you should walk around pre-emptively striking everyone, just to make sure you got the people who MIGHT do you harm.

[CapelDodger]

But Pakistan and Iran are NOT equivalent, despite whatever superficial similarities you'd like to draw, so no reason the response SHOULD be the same. If you want to argue that our response to Pakistan acquiring nukes was insufficient, fine, do so. But you haven't, and I suspect you don't really want to either.
When I use "almost hysterical" in reference to Iran I'm not making a comment on the response to Pakistan. That seems pragmatic and reasonable. A shrug and "Hey, waddya gonna do". One thing to be done is prop up the military regime since, after them, a potential deluge. No mission to promote democracy there.

And you're wrong: Pakistan DID conceal their efforts, and quite successfully. They caught us totally off guard (much to the embarassment of the CIA) when they detonated their first nuke.
Details of the program may have been concealed but everybody knew they had one. Bhutto announced it way back. You can't conceal a full-cycle nuclear weapons program within such a small and underdeveloped economy. Their first-class centrifuge industry rather stands out.

The reason their secrecy didn't become such an ISSUE for the US was that 1) most Pakistanis don't chant "death to America!" on a regular basis
A lot of them do. Would you buy a KFC franchise in Karachi? In the border provinces, which are pretty much outside government control and always have been, the attitude towards the US is not friendly.

2) they never had any treaty obligations that were violated by developing nuclear weapons, since they never signed the NPT
Why not, do you think? Shouldn't that raise a flag? Just how embarrassed should the CIA be? Here's a thought : perhaps the CIA knew full well there was a Pakistani nuclear program but didn't assign it high priority. India seems to have known about the imminent Pakistani demonstration since they showed off some of their own a few weeks earlier. They presumably told the US what they knew before that, if only in the hope they'd lean on Pakistan.

3) our government, having failed to notice the program beforehand, wasn't keen on emphasising that failure.
Perhaps this time they're pre-emptively avoiding the possibility of such failure.

[Belz...]

that's quite possible, but obviously not certain. that's really the dillemma of the Bomb, it help prevents war, but it also opens the door to armegeddon. Given the choice I don't think I'd allow nuclear bombs to exist either, despite the benefits.

Maybe. Though there are other practical uses to their existence. They were, of course, the first step towards nuclear energy which, hopefully, will lead to fusion (not the dragonball kind, though that'd be COOL!) Also, it MIGHT be useful in deviating asteroids from impacting the earth, that sort of thing.

[Belz...]

It is taking things a little far, which is why nobody proposed that. I'm not claiming democracies have free reign to do whatever they want to non-democratic countries. Of course they don't. There still has to be some justification FOR an action against a dictatorship - that sovereignty cannot be used as an argument against interference doesn't mean that other arguments against such interference don't exist. In the hypothetical example above, the fact that innocent civilians would get blasted to bits is an argument against interference, and so it's not justified unless it's outweighed by some other concern. If your concern is that disregarding sovereignty of dictatorships means complete open season against them, it doesn't. It does, however, mean that they shouldn't get the same respect, deference, and guarantees of safety that democracies get.

I don't disagree, but I get the nagging feeling that my position is strongly influenced by the fact that I LIVE in a democratic country.

[Belz...]

To the extent that certainty is possible, no, they wouldn't. The leadership on both sides, for some decades on, had direct experience of conventional war on that sort of scale. That was enough to dissuade them. What could possibly be gained that would justify such cost?

Without nuclear weapons, I don't know if Russia could have had the resources for another war--after all, weren't they projected to endure devastating losses invading Japan?

I'm sure you're both right. I take it back. Considering the above, I've no way to know IF there would have been war.

[Ziggurat]

I don't disagree, but I get the nagging feeling that my position is strongly influenced by the fact that I LIVE in a democratic country.

Perhaps. But the fact that you might not hold a particular view had you grown up in some different environment doesn't mean that the view in question is wrong, either.

I'm going to make some generalizations which might get me into trouble, but I'll make them anyways, because they might make you more comfortable with where I'm coming from.

First off, we can never avoid truly difficult moral questions (ignoring them doesn't count as avoiding them). A set of moral principles which makes such decisions easy is probably not a correct one. Sovereignty for dictatorships is such an idea: it basically presents us with a default decision of never interfering with such countries, even if they're doing terrible things to their own citizens. It is, in that sense, an easy choice, since there is little we must decide in order to come to that conclusion. My opinion, which is that dictatorships have no legitimate claim to sovereignty, does not present us with easy decisions. We must still weigh relative risks (direct costs of interference to both us and possible innocent victims in the country in question, as well as indirect costs in terms of possible complications to relations with other countries, and even opportunity costs) against expected benefits. We must consider the likelyhood of success for whatever our objective is, and the costs of possible failure. And those questions are NOT easy, even though the principle of not valuing sovereignty for dictatorships is simple. Not valuing sovereignty for dictatorships is not equivalent to violating it at every opportunity.

[CapelDodger]

I'm not trying to suggest that my Tueller drill analogy is analogous to whether or not Iran has a knife.
I get the point vis-a-vis pre-emption generally, but you keep mixing in Iran specifically.

I believe Iran wants the same thing. A nuclear arsenal will allow them to inflict severe or even lethal damage on the "cop" (or US). I'm sure they are betting if faced with loss of one or more cities the US would abandon Israel.
Not everything - not much at all, really - is about Israel. The US has never attacked a nuclear-armed state. Just a thought.

They have allready OPENLY STATED their willingness to sacrifice Iranian lives for Jewish ones if that's what it takes to ANNIHILATE Israel.
Who exactly are "they" in this case? And is there a Farsi word that exactly corresponds with "annihilate" with all the connotations it carries for us? Again with the questions, I don't know what's got into me, normally I have a lecturing style.

You talk as if it's perfectly reasonable for the Jews to just quietly pack up & leave Israel. That's not going to happen.I do? That's some deep inferencing. You should check out zenith-nadir, he thinks it was perfectly reasonable for the Palestinians to pack up and leave in '48 and '49 and he's explicit about it.

As far as Pakistan--I agree with most of what you say about it. It was a mistake.....so hopefully we won't make the same mistake twice.
Pakistan was a mistake. Period. The world would, IMO, be a better place if it had never existed.

Aren't you the slightest bit bothered by the rhetoric coming out of Iran? They are now claiming they are perfectly willing to share their nuclear know-how with other Islamic countrys. Do you really think this won't eventually end in catastrophe?
Pakistan shared its nuclear know-how with Iran and North Korea, one Islamic and the other deeply weird and inscrutable. Catastrophe has not ensued. Not yet, admittedly. North Korea worries me more than the Islamic world.

I'm not bothered by Ahmedinejad's rhetoric. I find it encouraging. Unable to deliver domestically he tries to distract attention to foreign affairs and emotive issues. The mullahs and Khameini, for whom Ahmedinejad was the best they could fall back on, have found that they can't control him. He speaks for what remains of the firebrand Revolutionary Generation of '79, while they are the comfortable and fat new Establishment. The Revolution has nearly run it's course, and waiting in the wings is an established democratic body, which currently lacks full sovereignty. Left to itself Iran will become the first modern post-Islamic democracy in five or ten years.

[CapelDodger]

Without nuclear weapons, I don't know if Russia could have had the resources for another war--after all, weren't they projected to endure devastating losses invading Japan?
They swept over Manchuria and Sakhalin in August '45 without much trouble. I doubt they had any plans to invade Japan's main islands, "Soviet Landing-Craft 1941-45" hasn't even made it to the Osprey catalogue. That said, the Soviet response to devastating losses was a shrug and a "Meh!". Been there, done that, got Berlin.

[Giz]

Well, . . . all I can say is you'd better make damn sure he's got some WMD in his coat pocket. You're going to look pretty stupid (like someone we all know) when you attack first because YOU THINK he's got a weapon and then the police find out YOU were the one who initiated violence.

Yes, before unleashing shock and awe one should be as sure as possible. No one has suggested that Iran should be bombed based on someone not liking the cut of Ahminabadmood's gib.


Your last statement is really laughable! Perhaps you should walk around pre-emptively striking everyone, just to make sure you got the people who MIGHT do you harm.

Wow, that's some strawgiant. Did I say strike everyone, or did I say that considering striking the country that is threatening genocide and seems hellbent on developing nukes (aint just Bush thinks this - even the French and Germans are concerned) seems reasonable...

[Mephisto]

Wow, that's some strawgiant. Did I say strike everyone, or did I say that considering striking the country that is threatening genocide and seems hellbent on developing nukes (aint just Bush thinks this - even the French and Germans are concerned) seems reasonable...

Okay, if you think it's reasonable to JUST strike those who you feel ACT threatening toward you. . . I guess the law will probably side with you, right?

(edited to add) I don't think Iran has threatened an American genocide. Why don't we just let Israel handle the problem - they're the ones most directly involved?

[Giz]

Okay, if you think it's reasonable to JUST strike those who you feel ACT threatening toward you. . . I guess the law will probably side with you, right?


Are you seriously advocating the position that Iran is behaving as if it would be a responsible member of the nuclear club, or are you pretending to be dense for rhetorical purposes?

[CapelDodger]

(derail) Once again I can't help but feel depressed at the post-Cold War world. I used to think that once we could get over the insane nuclear standoff with Russia, we could go about moving into the fabled "future" and start building our hovercars, robots, and interstellar spaceships and such :)
Where's my jet-pack? :mad:

When the Kuwait War kicked off I said "At least you know where you are with a Cold War". Times have been interesting and eventful since that cap was twisted off the bottle.

On the plus side we know that the surface of Titan is crunchy "like creme caramel" (radar will never tell us that, you have to be there in a material sense, even if by proxy) and rovers on Mars and Hubble pictures and extra-solar planets and so much wonderful stuff.

[CapelDodger]

Are you seriously advocating the position that Iran is behaving as if it would be a responsible member of the nuclear club, or are you pretending to be dense for rhetorical purposes?
Iran isn't a member of the nuclear weapons club and won't be for years. Ahmedinejad's behaviour right now, in a collapsing political structure originally anchored on the nonpareil Khomeini, is very unlikely to be representative of Iran a few years down the line.

Iran has become a member of the nuclear power club by enriching uranium. That achievement can't be erased. Violent means can be used to stop it happening again for a few years, but what message does that send? That US policy is so short-term it must be driven by belief in the End Times?

[Belz...]

My opinion, which is that dictatorships have no legitimate claim to sovereignty, does not present us with easy decisions. We must still weigh relative risks (direct costs of interference to both us and possible innocent victims in the country in question, as well as indirect costs in terms of possible complications to relations with other countries, and even opportunity costs) against expected benefits. We must consider the likelyhood of success for whatever our objective is, and the costs of possible failure. And those questions are NOT easy, even though the principle of not valuing sovereignty for dictatorships is simple. Not valuing sovereignty for dictatorships is not equivalent to violating it at every opportunity.

Still, case-by-case is the best way to go. "Some" dictatorships are mild, relatively.

[gnome]

The problem I see is... if we try to say, as a matter of international law, that dictatorships CAN be invaded any time a free country finds the circumstances apt... they might legitimately ask why they should agree to respect the borders of other countries. If the answer is, "Well, because we can kick your a$$", that really is a case of might makes right. One might as well abandon the concept of international law, in favor of pursuing Western-Democratic hegemony. Maybe that's good? But we should call it what it is, if that's the idea.

[Ziggurat]

The problem I see is... if we try to say, as a matter of international law, that dictatorships CAN be invaded any time a free country finds the circumstances apt... they might legitimately ask why they should agree to respect the borders of other countries. If the answer is, "Well, because we can kick your a$$", that really is a case of might makes right. One might as well abandon the concept of international law, in favor of pursuing Western-Democratic hegemony. Maybe that's good? But we should call it what it is, if that's the idea.

"Because we can kick your ***" is the only thing that has ever made dictators respect international borders. Dispensing with the pretense that this is otherwise isn't a big loss in my mind. But international law covers more than just that. It's also quite important in international trade, and it usually IS in everyone's interests to play by those rules, even with dictators.

[Giz]

The problem I see is... if we try to say, as a matter of international law, that dictatorships CAN be invaded any time a free country finds the circumstances apt... they might legitimately ask why they should agree to respect the borders of other countries. If the answer is, "Well, because we can kick your a$$", that really is a case of might makes right.

What Zig said.

[Ralph]

I'm not bothered by Ahmedinejad's rhetoric. I find it encouraging. Unable to deliver domestically he tries to distract attention to foreign affairs and emotive issues. The mullahs and Khameini, for whom Ahmedinejad was the best they could fall back on, have found that they can't control him. He speaks for what remains of the firebrand Revolutionary Generation of '79, while they are the comfortable and fat new Establishment. The Revolution has nearly run it's course, and waiting in the wings is an established democratic body, which currently lacks full sovereignty. Left to itself Iran will become the first modern post-Islamic democracy in five or ten years.



So....the guy's got the sword out of the scabbard & is waving it around. He's threatening to kill bystanders & he's threatening to kill the cops.

The cops have IDd him and it turns out he has a history of mental instability & violent behavior.

The cops have repeatedly asked him to put down the sword....but he refuses and keeps on moving closer and continues his threats to kill people.

He's getting close to that 7 yard circle-----but you're suggesting that the cops do nothing and allow the sword waving maniac to get even closer because he's probably just bluffing. He'll put his sword away,unbloodied, and will even eventually become your friend???????


Nothing would make me happier than to see the Iranian mullahs overthrown but it's citizens.....preferably without any outside interference from the US or those meddling Jews of course.

I'm sure there are lots of Iranians who'd like to go back to what it was like under the Shah (minus the whole SAVAK thing anyway).

I'm sure there are lots of Iranians who'd rather have a life-style based around jeans,miniskirts, and decadent western music rather than all this Islamic BS they've had to deal with since Khomeni came on the scene.

I'm just not convinced they can pull this off though. Every time you hear rumblings of dissent--it seems like the mullahs squash it.

I don't think the "good Germans" in the 30's could've toppled the nazis since they had all the guns & power and I'm afraid the same thing may apply here.

The consequences of just doing nothing and allowing Iran to develop nuclear capabilities under the present regime are too frightening to risk.

[CapelDodger]

So....the guy's got the sword out of the scabbard & is waving it around. He's threatening to kill bystanders & he's threatening to kill the cops.

The cops have IDd him and it turns out he has a history of mental instability & violent behavior.
Just to get this clear : are you claiming this analogy is somehow applicable to Iran?

I'm sure there are lots of Iranians who'd like to go back to what it was like under the Shah (minus the whole SAVAK thing anyway).
The Shah's regime was the SAVAK thing. It had no popular support or legitimacy. Iran's oil-wealth was squandered by a cowardly braggart with no honour, and an elite of cronies. Rest assured that there are not many Iranians who want those days back.

I'm sure there are lots of Iranians who'd rather have a life-style based around jeans,miniskirts, and decadent western music rather than all this Islamic BS they've had to deal with since Khomeni came on the scene.
And rather than all the imprisonments, tortures and murders of the Shah's regime. There are definitely lots of these.

I'm just not convinced they can pull this off though. Every time you hear rumblings of dissent--it seems like the mullahs squash it.
They have so far, but their authority is in a pretty parlous state. You have to consider demographics and the passage of time. The Revolution was 27 years ago, most Iranians have only ever known this regime. It has failed to deliver, the mullahs have had plenty of time to demonstrate their corruption and incompetence. Ahmedinejad is an embarrassment to the Iranian people and to the mullahs. The mullahs power resides in their veto power over Parliament, but that doesn't give them control over Ahmedinejad's mouth or the conferences he convenes. They may have to turn to Parliament to help them rein him in (along with the old Revolutionary generation he appeals to). At which point Parliament can demand a price.

That's one possible scenario. All that's certain is that the current political structure is tottering. It was erected by and for Khomeini and depended on him. He's gone, and Khameini is no substitute.

What's also clear is that an attack on Iran will shore up the current structure. Sanctions, on the other hand, might rattle it. "What do we want? iPods! When do we want them? Now!" Any regime would shiver at that chant in the streets.

[CapelDodger]

Oh yawn. You can’t rewrite the laws of physics, oh dear, how terrible, how cruel the world is.

Of course, the question asked wasn’t if you could rewrite physics or un-make Pakistan, but if, given the chance, if you would have prevented Pakistan from building the bomb. You know, like today we have the opportunity to prevent Iran from doing so?
Your simplistic questions aren't going to compel me to give simplistic answers. As I said, Pakistan having the bomb doesn't leave me more concerned than if they didn't. In a way it's useful as an example of yet another nation that has had The Bomb for some years and hasn't used it. It helps in getting a sense of proportion.

That’s lovely sophistry and I’m sure I’m supposed to feel it’s keen poignant bite, but I remember when you first mentioned Pakistan you raised some specific issues about that country that seemed to be important issues that just don’t apply to Israel:

Sophistry is spurious logic. All I did was not answer your question (mea culpa) but ask it back substituting Israel for Iran. Then you start on about Pakistan and Israel. It's all very confused, and I'd rather not get tangled in such woolliness.

[Kerberos]

Maybe. Though there are other practical uses to their existence. They were, of course, the first step towards nuclear energy which, hopefully, will lead to fusion (not the dragonball kind, though that'd be COOL!) Also, it MIGHT be useful in deviating asteroids from impacting the earth, that sort of thing.
Considering that we are rewriting the laws of physics here I see no reason why nuclear power (and in fact cold fussion) shouldn't work in the absence of nuclear weapons.