Why Iran?

Classic mindset of the insipid Liberal World Citizen.

Everyone's perspective is valid.

Everyone's interests are of equal value.

Like it or not Xingu you live in a world of competing interests and your rather quaint notion of fair play and relativistic values is sneered at by the folks you seek to champion.

Our (American) interests are paramount. If you are an American, you benefit greatly from this creed. Should the interests of other nations align with our own, we call them allies - should they run counter to ours, we call them enemies.

The truth of the matter is that, irrespective of their interests, the current Iranian regime does not represent a moral equivalent of the American government. Their desires and goals are not to be considered as residing on the same plane as those of the US. This doesn't mean America is perfect, but it does mean that it is a better place to live in than Iran.

Nevertheless, let's assume that there is no measurable difference in the value of American and Iranian interests. We will not dare to judge, they are equal in validity.

So now they come into conflict Xingu...on which side to you take your stand?

It's all well and good to argue that the positions of either side can be rationally explained, but when these positions confront one another, which one do you support?

If you are a Canadian, a Spaniard, a South African etc, you might find it difficult to "take sides," and perhaps you will not, but if you are an American, there doesn't seem to be much of a quandary.

You seem to be one of those who have no problem finding the objective value in the interests of any and all nations on earth...other than America.

If you argue that promoting American interests over Iranian interests is nothing more than an expression of self-interest, I won't mount much of an argument in opposition.

It puzzles me though why an American might feel compelled to value the interests of other nations over those of their own. It seems, at least to me, to be an expression of not only a bankruptcy of character, but of intellect as well...the fitful mewings of a spoiled child.

In some sense I suspect that you and likeminded individuals find a sense of superiority in your willingness to trash your homeland...despite the fact that you are only too happy to enjoy the vast benefits of that homeland and, on some level, know that all of your caterwauling will not effect significant change and thus shake your precious and secure place of smug disdain.

There is nothing particularly brave about criticizing a nation that not only tolerates but encourages criticism.

There is nothing particularly bright about condemning the interests of another tribe over those of your own.

You and your friends like to think of yourselves as somehow transcendent of your status as American citizens. America enables this, which is to its credit, but do you imagine yourself the same ideological hero in places like Iran, China, Burma, Venezuela, Sudan, Ivory Coast, etc etc etc?

In these places your resistance might mean something. In America it is little more than the whining of the dilettante.

.

That was quite a good polemic Finn and I'm sure Xinghsu is suitably chastised.

But treading very carefully so as not to be confused with a world liberal citizen or some such, and referring to the two snippets above, just what are American interests here? Does the Islamic Republic of Iran threaten those interests, if so how?

Regarding moral equivalence, I'm tempted to agree. But superior morals doesnt come into real-politic. Its who has the biggest stick that really counts. And thanks to American and British incompetence in the region, Tehran is firmly in the driving seat and Ahmadinejad feeling pretty pleased with himself I should think.

If the Iranians are determined on nuclear weapons, they will acquire them, and in the long term there is nothing America can do to stop them. The only sensible way forwards was to pursuade Tehran they didnt need them, but you've missed that opportunity.

I stand with my country. That's the reason I was against our invasion of Iraq and an attack on Iran.

Bush is putting out all this bs about WWIII and Iran attacking Eastern Europe, all in an effort to gain support for an attack on Iran. The ignorant and the dumb will believe this despite the fact we have no evidence at all that Iran is producing nuclear weapons or if she had them she would commit suicide by launching them.

It was not in our best interest to attack Iraq and it will not be in our best interest to do the same to Iran.

It was not in our best interest to get over 3,500 of our soldiers killed for nothing in Iraq. They're not dying for our freedom as Saddam was not a threat to it. What we have shown the world is how weak and incompetent we are when faced with unconventional warfare. That is not in our best interest.

It was not in our best interest to attack Iraq and turn the Muslim world against us. We had their sympathy after 9/11 and lost it after our invasion of Iraq. The Iraqi invasion has given more sympathy and support for AQ in the Muslim world and a new active training ground for them to export trained fighters to other parts of the Middle East.

It was not in our best interest to abandoned Afghanistan and put a majority of our resources into Iraq. We could have killed Osama but Iraq we had a higher priority. Instead of building up Afghanistan we neglected it and the country went to hell. The Taliban are making a comeback, the warlords rule outside of Kabul and poppies are now the main crop of the country. When we invaded Afghanistan Bush made a lot of grandiose promises about how he would rebuild Afghanistan. He failed to carry them out because of Iraq and we are now in two Vietnams with the idiot possibly wanting to attack Iran and getting us involved in a third Vietnam.

Another side affect to Afghanistan is Pakistan. Our neglect of Afghanistan has led to the Teliban and AQ taking control of NW Pakistan and creating instability in the country. There's rebellion in Baluchistan in southwest Pakistan. If you want to worry about nuclear weapons getting into extremist hands you had better look to Pakistan, not Iran.

In the process of threatening to attack Iran we have made a new enemy, Russia. I suppose that was in our self interest as well.

Over 3,800 dead Americans, over $400 billion spent on the war and no end in sight for both wars. Oh ya, that's really in our self interest.

And don't forget, we have to start another one with Iran. If we have two Vietnams, why not three?

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem." ?- George W. Bush, Jan. 2001.

BTW, is it in America's best interest to have Israel dictate our foreign policy in the Middle East? In 1996 some of the neo-con who were planners of the Iraqi war were planning for Saddam's removal.


http://zfacts.com/p/89.html

In 1998 they wanted Clinton to remove Saddam by whatever means possible.



Today Israel is one of the leading avocates of our attacking Iran.

Tell me, how many American lives is Israel worth? We have already spent over 3,800. Maybe 5,000; 10,000?

It's all about Israel and oil. All this talk about Saddam's WMD's and Iran's nuclear weapons is BS. Iran's nuclear weapons is just as real as Saddam's 500 tons of nerve gas ready to be given to AQ and kill millions of Americans.

It's not in our best interest to attack countries based on lies and cooked intelligence.

"Tell me, how many American lives is Israel worth? We have already spent over 3,800. Maybe 5,000; 10,000?"

1 American life is too many.

One day, maybe the elected officials of this Nation will realize that the middle east has no economic value to the US (other than OIL) and we have no business interest in the area.

When this Govt gets the "stones" to eliminate oil imports from this area, only then can the US become the great free Nation is was.

Face it, Bush has no stones, Democrats have no stones and Republicans have no stones.

I'm glad you referred only to America in your above statement. You left out another country from your analysis.

The problem that I have with the above points is the simple word "our." I assume you are including yourself in the word "our." But, if one is truly honest about why the U.S. has ANY agendas, it is not for the all inclusive "our" (the voting public). It is for those that have a vested interest in the U.S. as an economic engine. That refers to those who are a sort of invisible aristocracy, whether due to family land ownership, or other wealth.

Whatever points where stated above, as not in "our" interests, is ignoring the fact that they reflect efforts that where in more than one groups interest, since things happen due to a consensus of the ruling classes.

I believe individuals in the U.S. should stop criticizing the hand that feeds them. So what if one isn't a big cheese. That's the price of one's family not coming here in the 1600's and struggling to give future generations, of their family, a position of wealth and power. Stop with the sour grapes!

Our=America

Since I'm talking about America's self-interest that would include all groups including the "invisible aristocracy." It's true that no matter how bad things get or how good there will be some group that will benefit. But I'm not interested in those groups when I say "our."

Who is the "hand that feeds us?" Since when do they have a free hand to do as they choose and be above cricizism? Are they Devine?

The "sour grapes" will continue.

Iraq taught us nothing
The U.S. establishment's acceptance of a possible war with Iran shows that the folly that led to Iraq still rules Washington.
By Gary Kamiya

Nov. 06, 2007

The U.S. could attack Iran in the next few months.

Let's repeat that. The U.S. could attack Iran in the next few months.

The fact that this sentence can be written with a straight face proves that the Iraq debacle has taught us absolutely nothing. Talk of attacking Iran should be confined to the lunatic fringe. Yet America's political and media elite have responded to the idea of attacking Iran in almost exactly the same way they did to the idea of attacking Iraq. Four and a half years after Bush embarked on one of the most catastrophic foreign-policy adventures in our history, the same wrongheaded, ignorant and self-destructive approach to the Arab-Muslim world and to fighting terrorism still rules establishment thinking.

The disturbing thing is that we have no excuse this time. Five years ago, a wounded, fearful and enraged America was ready to attack anybody, and Bush waved his red cape and steered the mad bull toward Iraq. We now know that was folly. The completely unnecessary invasion has so far resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and almost 4,000 Americans, severely destabilized the region, cost billions of dollars, and increased the threat of terrorism. Yet today we are blithely considering attacking a much larger Middle Eastern country for equally dubious reasons, and mainstream politicians and the media are once again going along. The American people have signed off on the conventional "wisdom." In a recent poll, 52 percent of Americans say they would support attacking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This is surreal. It's as if we're back on Sept. 12 and Iraq never happened.

It is not surprising that the GOP is calling for a wider Mideast war. The party has nothing except fear to sell: Its initials might as well stand for "Grand Orgy of Paranoia." But the acquiescence of many Democrats, and the mainstream media, shows just how intractable are the myths and fallacies about the Middle East and terrorism.

Four related misconceptions continue to distort our Middle East policy: the terrorism freakout, the Satan myth, the they're-all-the-same fallacy, and the belief that we're innocent.

In many ways the terrorism freakout is our founding error, one that predates 9/11 by decades. Our obsession with terrorism, our failure to place it in historical context, our hypocrisy in defining it, and our overreaction to it have marred our ability to craft an intelligent Middle East policy. It has seriously deformed our response to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis (still the region's key conflict), provided much of the impetus for the Iraq war, and now is paving the way for possible war with Iran.

America's response to Palestinian terrorism has set the tone for our subsequent responses to the phenomenon. No one condones terrorism: It is morally repugnant to kill civilians, no matter how legitimate the terrorists' political goals may be. But by simply declaring that Palestinian terrorism was evil, and refusing to acknowledge or address the Palestinians' legitimate grievances, America long ago locked itself into a morally incoherent, historically obtuse and ultimately self-defeating position. As Robert Fisk noted in "The Great War for Civilisation," because of America's pro-Israel bias, it has always seen Palestinian terrorism as "comfortably isolated from reason, cause or history ... 'Terrorism' is a word that has become a plague on our vocabulary, the excuse and reason and moral permit for state-sponsored violence -- our violence -- which is now used on the innocent of the Middle East ever more outrageously and promiscuously." The uncomfortable fact is that Israeli-Palestinian crisis is the crucial frame through which America has always understood the Middle East: Palestinians were the first of a long line of Arab and Muslim supervillains. Once we ourselves suffered a massive terrorist attack, our atavistic rage at these evildoers knew no bounds -- and it was easy for the Bush administration to persuade us to attack Iraq.

Our overreaction to terrorism, combined with military triumphalism, found its supreme expression in Vice President Dick Cheney's notorious "one percent doctrine," which holds that if there is even a 1 percent chance that an enemy will acquire dangerous weapons, the United States must launch a preventive attack. As Iraq should have shown us, this doctrine is paranoid, delusional and self-defeating. (The doctrine is aptly named: It has a 1 percent chance of success.) Yet as the Iran war drums show, it still drives U.S. policy.

Hysteria about terrorism leads to a dangerous belief in the efficacy of military force. Of course U.S. forces can destroy any conventional adversary. But victory on the battlefield does not necessarily translate into foreign-policy success -- especially not in an asymmetric war, like the one we face in Iraq and would face in Iran if we sent in ground forces. In fact, as Iraq should have shown us, we should wage war in the Middle East only as an absolute last resort. The costs are much too high and the risks of unintended consequences (Turkey and the Kurds, the crisis in Pakistan) too great. "Toughness" makes a great sound bite for opportunistic politicians, but in the real world it strengthens our terrorist enemies and ends up getting Americans killed for no reason.

Next comes the Satan myth, which says that our foes in the Middle East are uniquely evil, irrational, motiveless and impervious to deterrence. Just as the United States has seen the Palestinians as evil anti-Semites, not as complex actors with some legitimate historical grievances, so we saw Saddam as insane and undeterrable -- and now are asked to believe the same thing about the mad mullahs of Iran. The terror attacks on 9/11, which were carried out by fanatics who really were impervious to deterrence, made the Satan myth practically untouchable. Lost in the rage and fear over the attacks was the fact that violent jihadists like al-Qaida are few in number and have almost no popular support. Claiming that Iraq, like al-Qaida, was part of an "axis of evil," Bush used the Satan myth to sell the war against Iraq. And it now provides the key support for a war with Iran. If Iran is an insane, fanatical, undeterrable state, the equivalent of al-Qaida, then if follows that we must consider attacking it to prevent it from acquiring nuclear bombs.

The myth of a demonic, irrational, powerful Iran has no basis in fact. Iran, as Juan Cole has pointed out, "has not launched an aggressive war against a neighbor since 1785 and does not have a history of military expansionism. Its population is a third that of the United States and its military is small and weak." Nor is it bent on fighting the United States or Israel to the death. Iran made a major peace offer to the United States in 2003, offering a comprehensive diplomatic settlement, including ending its support for Hamas and recognition of Israel, in exchange for normal relations. The Bush administration, smugly certain that it was about to get rid of the entire regime, refused to talk.

Like Iraq for Bush peace is out of the question. There is only one option; WAR (more sour grapes).

Nor is Iran undeterrable. It obviously has significant differences with the United States. But it is a rational actor, concerned like any other state to maximize its regional power and minimize threats to its existence. As Trita Parsi, author of the new book "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S.," argued in a recent piece in the Nation, "a careful study of Iran's actions -- not just its rhetoric -- reveals systematic, pragmatic and cautious maneuvering toward a set goal: decontainment and the re-emergence of Iran as a pre-eminent power in the Middle East." This is why retired Gen. John Abizaid recently said that America could live with a nuclear Iran.

Under the specious heading of "Islamofascism," we have dangerously conflated completely different regimes and non-state actors -- this is the "they're all the same" fallacy. The Bush administration has aggressively promoted the idea that every Mideast state or militant movement that isn't on the same side as the United States or Israel poses the same threat as al-Qaida -- or simply asserted that those states are synonymous with al-Qaida, as the Bush administration did before the Iraq war. This is absurd and violates the first principle of both statesmanship and generalship: See the situation clearly and objectively. It leads to completely false assessments of entities like Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, and leads us to make far more enemies than we need to in the Arab-Muslim world.

Iran has no more to do with al-Qaida than Iraq did. Iran sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah, which have employed terrorism, but their fight is with Israel, not the United States. If we attack Iran because it supports Hezbollah, we might as well declare war on Kurdistan because it abets the PKK's far more deadly guerrilla campaign against Turkey. By treating Iran, or national-liberation groups like Hamas, as if they were al-Qaida, the United States is making an elementary and quite dangerous category error.

This shows the influence Israel has on our foreign policy in the Middle East.

The final error is our invincible belief in our innocence, which derives from our almost complete ignorance of the region's history and its people. Americans can entertain notions of marching smartly into some Middle Eastern country, killing a bunch of evil ragheads, fixing things up, shaking hands all around, and marching out because most Americans simply have no knowledge of Middle Eastern history or America's long and often shameful record of imperialist and colonialist meddling. Perhaps Americans might view Iran differently if more of them knew that in 1953, America and Great Britain overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed a bloody but pro-U.S. tyrant, the Shah. The 1979 revolution that brought Khomeini to power, and put Iran and United States on the collision course that has lasted to this day, was a direct result of that infamous coup (which we engineered because we wanted cheap Iranian oil). Neither Iranians nor anyone else in the Middle East has forgotten such matters -- why should they? Until we understand and come to terms with our often-ugly track record in the region, we will be doomed to play the part of Graham Greene's haplessly idealistic Quiet American, blundering into places we don't understand, not knowing why the natives don't like us, and making things infinitely worse.

There are not many indications that Americans, whether Democrats or Republicans, can break away from these persistent fallacies about the Middle East and terrorism. There are a few glimmers of hope, however. Sen. Barack Obama broke decisively with the establishment position last week, stating that if elected, he would "engage in aggressive personal diplomacy with Iran" without preconditions. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel took the same position in a letter he sent to Bush calling for "direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran." And in a noteworthy column, ultra-establishment pundit Fareed Zakaria recently attacked the entire set of assumptions behind the campaign to whip up war fever against Iran. "The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality," Zakaria wrote in Newsweek.

But the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, has not broken with the establishment paradigm. She has hedged her bets but not staked out a completely new course. And her refusal to do so means that the Democratic Party is failing to speak with one voice on the most important issue of our time. Until it does so, the paradigm shift that is so urgently necessary will not occur. Soon it may be too late -- either to prevent war with Iran or to find the will to break away from the ruinous assumptions that have left our Middle East policy in tatters.

-- By Gary Kamiya

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/11/06/iran_war/

"The system" is the hand that feeds us. It affords some people more than others, simply since some people have been given an advantage: brains, family, looks, whatever.

I don't begrudge those that have more wealth or power. I try to live my life, enjoying what fate brought me.

At what point does criticism just turn into whining?

I suppose that depends on your definition of whining and criticism. I'm very critical of this administration. It lied to us about why we must attack Iraq and it's doing the same about Iran. The idea that Iran will launch missiles against Israel and eastern Europe, as Bush has suggested, is ridiculous.

What Israel and America don't want is Iran becoming a power in the Middle East. But it is becoming a power and is doing so because of Bush and Israel. Bush has no one to blame but himself for Iran's rise to power so we had better get use to it and accept the consequences of our actions instead of making them worse through more military adventures. It seems that everyone who wants to attack Iran don't want to think what the consequences will be. We saw the consequences of Iraq. Are we to think Iran will not be any worse?

i think, about the time a person starts whining that people that criticise things like torture and exploitive class systems aren't grateful enough. and just so you know you have it backwards, *we* feed the system, not the other way around. i can't imagine what blinker (or bunker) keeps you from seeing that, but it's gotta be miles thick of concrete and lead lined, either way.

I would hope you don't speak for me when you say, "us." Nor, in your last sentence above when you say, "we."

I have no problem with our mission in Iraq.

And, as I understand it, there are Sunni Moslem countries that don't want Iran, a Shiite Moslem country, to become the regional power. It is not just the U.S. and Israel. And, since Israel's existence has been threatened by Iran's political statements, Israel has every right to feel threatened by Iran getting the bomb.

I don't know what motivates your postings, but don't assume it reflects objective fact; they are your subjective opinions/views. You are entitled to them, but accept the fact that there are people that have their own opinions/views that differ.

And, your above posting didn't explain why the U.S. and Israel do not want Iran to become a regional power. Well, I think both have reasons. I know Israel does, and she is not that far away from Iran,as the crow flies. I am guessing that your apparent discounting of Israel's fears stems from your not really relating to the fears of Israel's Jewish citizens (meaning you might lack positive feelings for that country as a Jewish State). Would this be a good guess?

You say you have no problem with us invading Iraq. Well if you have a problem with Iran becomig a regional power than you should have a problem with us invading Iraq.

You may not, but then you're not there.

Foofie wrote





The invasion of Iraq was stupidity.

An invasion of Iran would be insanity.

Using derogatory terms to frame your opinion just makes it an opinion that uses derogatory terms. No proof.

Your point means nothing. I'm also not in London, but I can say I have no problem with the fog in London. Get it? While Londoners may not appreciate their fog, I can say the fog is "good" because it reminds me of Sherlock Holmes movies. We all have our own perspectives.

and like the war, you're obviously blissfully unaware of the problems associated with the fog. it's amazing what you can "appreciate" when you aren't paying attention.