BIKEMAN

If an entity is powerful and dangerous as the current US admin clearly is (that idea is accepted throughout most of the world and many Americans think that), then it is not demonization to say they are powerful and dangerous. That is a mere statement of fact.

When the Nazis called the Jews and gypsies powerful and dangerous that was a total fabrication and thus demonization of these relatively powerless groups.

Confed999

I usually go with who is deserving of demonization, and not how much power they have.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Bluesman

Yeah, but then again, you're crazy.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Confed999

I'm 1/2 redneck, and 1/2 hillbilly to begin with, so to him I'm already the enemy...

HistoricalDavid

Appeal to popularity.

Not a good way to argue.

In fact, one of the defining arguments of 'populist sheep'.

Anon

You're a worthless troll.

Where did you fight in combat again? Well? Speak up boy.

astralis

bikeman,

well, i am still pro-iraq invasion. saddam was indeed dangerous. WMD, everyone believed in them (as did I). but i thought the best thing that would and should have come from the war was a decisive, and positive, shake to the region. those effects have been dulled by the bad post-war decisions of 2003-4.

however, to be fair, i do not believe either war qualifies as a "disaster". as measured by economic, human, and military costs, both wars are actually small critters compared to even the likes of a limited Vietnam War.

as for iran,

i do believe that military options are on the table. the question remains, though, is this the most effective path? and is it worth the costs?

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, based upon what i believe to be the aims of iran, i do not believe it is so. but this can change.

as for iranian views towards the US, the people themselves are not fearful of the US, and are actually fairly warm towards the US. the US intervention is small, once again, compared to what the british and the russians were doing in iran.

astralis

bluesman,

again, to be fair, we SHOULD quit if the benefits of quitting exceed those of staying.

of course, in iraq, this is not (yet?) the case.

there has been talk in washington that in the event of a full-fledged civil war, bush will withdraw the troops.

astralis

tophatter,

stalin was a mix of rationality and irrationality, especially when it came to the mass murder bit. it was rational enough that his mass-murders actually cemented his rule, instead of undermining it, as has been the case so many times in history (nero comes to mind).

astralis

parihaka,

that quote was the vice-president's answer on "Meet the Press", to a pointed question on the topic ("And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?"). it was hard to believe at time, that such an answer could have been so baldly stated on national media without prior approval, or at least prior thought. note the date when mr. cheney said it, as well. but again, we are getting off-topic. let us focus on iran.

i'm not arguing on the basis of "justness" or "hypocrisy" here; i am arguing on the basis of national interest. the stated case for military intervention in iran is thus:

"iran is developing nuclear weapons-->iran has crazy, irrational leaders-->iran, then, upon getting nukes, will irrationally use them-->thus we must get rid of the leaders, or at the very least get rid of the nuclear capability."

what i meant by using the north korean example was to show the following corollary:

"north korea has nukes/is developing nukes--->kim jong-il, with both past words and actions, shown himself to be more irrational than a-jad-->however, even kim has not used nukes/we have not got rid of kim/we have not got rid of his nuclear capability-->as of right now we don't seem much concerned."

what's the difference, then, between the case of iran and north korea? according to these threat factors, kim jong-il is nuttier, and actually has the capability (unlike iran). so why the difference in our actions regarding each country?

Confed999

"We believe", are key wods there, nothing definitive at all. It's also not off topic, as all to do with Iran is a "we believe" situation as well...

lwarmonger

And I'm not arguing that, however as long as we are making comparisons regarding the threat the Iranians pose to the threat that Nazi Germany posed, I think it is essential. For while Iran has a fraction of the comparative resources that Nazi Germany possessed, it doesn't need all of the strength and competence of 1939 Germany to cripple much of the industrialized world.

lwarmonger

Interesting point. The best answers I can come up with is one: we have allies who are far more engaged with the North Korean issue than we are (South Korea and Japan), and have far more to lose than we do. And two, the North Koreans (probably) already have nukes, and it is therefore far more problematic to dispose of their nuclear capability with little loss than it is to pre-empt the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Amled

Astralis, since my machine went down and I lost my correspondence files I’m unable to point this out to you, so I’ll eat my words (gag…sorry lol!)
If I understand you right, you mean that this tinpot demagogue might not carry through on what he has said, I tend to disagree.
So far he has carried through on what he has said, the on going crackdown case in point.
If ( And that is a big IF!) if he and Iran is allowed to go nuclear, then there is no certainty he won’t carry through on his intimation to remove Israel from the face of the world.
To date his words and deeds have not given much credence to him being pragmatic enough to back down, and even if he is, then the hatred and xenophobia he has whipped up in the extremist factions of his followers might not let him.

__________________
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

astralis

amled,

in regards to this, given his actions- and those of the mullahs controlling him- they certainly have demonstrated a knowledge that even having nukes, let alone USING nukes, will bring them quite a bit of pain, courtesy of the US. (again, why negotiate if totally nutters?)

in short, they know that using nukes is suicidal, both for them, their regime, and probably the iranian populace as a whole. they might hate the US and israel, sure, but do they hate them enough to turn their nation into glass for it? or perhaps still more importantly, does the iranian populace see it that way?

i would argue, hardly so. the iran of today is rather different from the iran of 1979. if the iranians knew that their leaders were about to turn their whole nations, their very families, into subatomic particles to fulfill their xenophobic hatreds towards US/israel, i am fairly sure that in a short amount of time, the leaders will be hanging from lamp-posts.

just taking a look at one measure, a-jad's promise to pay the families of suicide bombers in the palestinian territories. despite the measly sums (for a state) involved, it's one heck of an unpopular measure in iran, with people grumbling, "why are we giving OUR money to the arabs?"