13 replies to this topic

[Cyberbrain]

First accusations are started stating that Iran is trying to develop nuclear reactors (even though by international they are allowed to) and that they are helping terrorists in Iraq.

Now they're accusing Syria of also developing nuclear reactors by North Korea?

[Cyberbrain]

Is it just me, or do neocons have nothing better to do than to pick on third world countries that are part of Bush's so called 'axis of evil'?

[niner]

Is it just me, or do neocons have nothing better to do than to pick on third world countries that are part of Bush's so called 'axis of evil'?

I don't hear any calls for invading North Korea. Interesting that once we invaded one country in the 'axis of evil', the other two seemed to become hellbent on obtaining the very atomic weapons that the first one didn't have.

[mentatpsi]

that's because Iran is supplying troops, weaponry, and finances to Iraq to help the resistance... it's not some accusation like Iraq has WMD... there's hard evidence to prove it

perhaps i'm biased since i'm Israeli... but i really don't feel like fundamentalists should gain nuclear power, i understand that the guy has a degree (maybe a masters as well) in engineering (mechanical is it?)... but it doesn't stop my fears that by allowing Iran to reach nuclear power it will distribute it to terror cells to later use against innocent lives... these aren't allies... remember that when we reach alternative energy, these countries will become near third world... remember what happened with the Soviet Union and all the arsenals that went missing...

I don't hate the arab people (in fact there are a lot of aspects of the culture that i thoroughly enjoy), i would love for the two cultures to come together in peace... but as long as these fundamentalists are in power there will be no peace because politicians are a bunch of corrupt capitalists. Do you think Ahmadinejad (Iran's president) represents the desires of the whole country? Does Bush represent the whole of America? I surely hope not...

As far as Bush... it's all about money, he's corrupt and probably allied himself with a couple corporations who are profiting from this war like crazy. The main risk of going into Iran and Syria obviously stems from republicans (I've even seen a video of the consequences and plans of invading Iran), but at the same token we can't turn our heads to fundamentalists gaining nuclear power... so would you prefer allowing them to gain nuclear power and then risking national security?

Edited by mysticpsi, 26 April 2008 - 10:48 PM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Edited by progressive, 27 April 2008 - 02:34 AM.

[niner]

As far as Bush... it's all about money, he's corrupt and probably allied himself with a couple corporations who are profiting from this war like crazy. The main risk of going into Iran and Syria obviously stems from republicans (I've even seen a video of the consequences and plans of invading Iran), but at the same token we can't turn our heads to fundamentalists gaining nuclear power... so would you prefer allowing them to gain nuclear power and then risking national security?

I have a hard time figuring Bush out. With the kind of wealth and power connections in his background, despite his faux cowboy persona, I can't see money playing that big a role with him. I honestly think that deep down, his End Times Christianist Nutcase beliefs have something to do with it. I have heard it said that despite appearances, "he's really smart". I don't buy it. I think that he is a tool, and has been played masterfully by the Neocons. Cheney is another case altogether.

I don't think that with an insane fool like Ahmedinejad spouting off the way he does that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weaponry. Ahmedinejad is an example of long term (55 years, in this case) blowback. He is ultimately our creation. Kim Jong Il is probably even more crazy, though, but he's already got nukes. We sure dropped the ball there, but with him holding Seoul hostage, what to do? More blowback? America and Israel have a lot in common, not the least of which is that both our countries are being endangered by rightwing militants: The GOP and Likud.

Thanks for the video, progressive. People who want to start to understand this mess should learn about People for a New American Century (PNAC).

[Rational Madman]

First accusations are started stating that Iran is trying to develop nuclear reactors (even though by international they are allowed to) and that they are helping terrorists in Iraq.

Now they're accusing Syria of also developing nuclear reactors by North Korea?

Yes it's an accusation, but there's convincing evidence that Syria had a program for the development of nuclear weapons for years, and that after the war in Iraq, they reached out to North Korea to give their efforts a much needed jolt of stimulus. But after an Israeli air strike destroyed their primary nuclear reactor in al-Kibar, and with the likely assassination of the military supervisor of the program, Muhammed Sulemein, the Syrians have probably put the program on indefinite halt, and have made an apparent shift in attention towards convincing the West to redeem the value of their controversial positions. There is also satisfying evidence supporting the accusation that Syria has provided haven to insurgent groups seeking to influence domestic political outcomes, force a painful withdrawal of the United States, and undermine the ruling government in Iraq---which is now considered a strategic rival. But it's not clear who has authorized this policy, and how enthusiastically it's supported by the Syrian government. Because since the ruling Allawites are deemed heretical by many Sunni insurgent groups, I imagine there is some discomfort with the policy, and concern that there might be a greater blowback in addition to the bombings that transnational Sunni groups have launched against Syrian targets. There are probably considerably less reservations about the presence of much of the remains of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party in Syria, which operates with impunity, and continues to finance a variety of insurgent groups with stolen government assets. But I imagine the provision of safe haven for this group is being used largely as another form of leverage over Iraq and the United States, and not very much related to the dim hope of a Ba'athist seizure of power in Iraq. So even though most Western intelligence agencies (save Canada) were wildly off the mark on Iraq's unconventional weapons programs, it doesn't mean that all intelligence on such programs in other countries is either inaccurate, or part of an ostensible Neoconservative campaign to invent pretexts for war. Because it's reasonable to conclude that the insecurity of states may give rise to the proliferation of unconventional weapons, and that in pursuit of this end, that they may collude with other state and non-state actors. But the question is, what's the appropriate response, and how would a successful program of proliferation alter the strategic balance of power, or the postures of other states? In most cases, their efforts may be hindered by the combined use of sanctions, clandestine activities, limiting the consequences through acts of reassurance, and the provision of aid to threatened states. And it seems that the United States is quite inclined---even during the Bush administration---to pursue this track.

Edited by Rol82, 31 October 2010 - 03:41 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Like Syria, Iran has certainly lended aid to militant groups, but in the case of Iran, the support has come more in the form of weaponry, improvised explosive devices of considerable sophistication, and funding for both military and political activities. But whether this is a policy approved by the ruling government, or an independent venture of the Revolutionary Guards, remains an open question. Iran has made no effort to conceal its support for the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps, but its alleged relationship with other insurgent groups is less certain, and I think there is a general tendency to overstate the role of foreign governments in what appears to be a largely indigenous insurgency.

There has yet to be precedent for a country sharing sensitive nuclear technology with a non-state actor, but there is the worrying case of a non-state actor---led by nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan---selling nuclear starter kits to other nation-states. However, there is no evidence that this network had the intention of providing similar support to non-state actors like Al-Qaeda, since their political goal was to strengthen Muslim states, and not to create conditions for nuclear war. For nation-states, nuclear proliferation is driven almost without exception by the rational desire to upgrade their defenses, and to gain greater freedom in foreign policymaking. And although some groups fantasize about the prospect of acquiring nuclear material, a regard for self-interest disinclines governments from transferring such technology, or creating conditions for theft. This is because every state understands the costs of erring, and the likelihood of massive retaliation if stolen or transferred material is used against a major target. In post-Soviet Russia, there were indeed instances of nuclear material going missing, but such only involved a very trivial quantity, and in any case, much of the missing material was later recovered. And in Pakistan, which is considered more vulnerable to cases of theft or collaboration, critical components like the nuclear trigger, have been separated, and kept under safe guard, which makes the chances of transfer by a rogue element within the military exceedingly remote. North Korea has been more audacious with its sharing of unconventional weapons, but again, they have predictably limited their clients and partners to nation-states. In the post 9/11 world, the fear of terrorist groups getting a hold of nuclear material is understandable, but to date, there is no evidence that there have been any significant failures in the safety protocols of nuclear weapons states, or reason to believe that there might be a future failure. If anything, there is evidence of a strong causal relationship between the spread of nuclear weapons and the reduced incidence of interstate war, so we shouldn't hyperventilate about the prospect of new members in the nuclear weapons club. Rather, we should simply try to contain the proliferation of such weapons, because the costs of development are significant for many of the underdeveloped aspirants, and because proliferation may give rise to a destabilizing arms race that leads to devastating miscalculations.

Finally, I can appreciate concerns over corporate influence in foreign policymaking, but there is little proof that recent acts of war were driven largely by the interests of the private sector, who has not fared especially well in postwar Iraq. Rather, it seems that the originally modest foreign policy of the Bush administration underwent a radical change after September 11th, which greatly altered assumptions about security, and because of undiminished feelings of triumphalism after the Cold War, there was a terrible failure to understand the limits of unipolarity---which led to a predictable case of overstretch in Iraq and the broader war against terrorism.

Edited by Rol82, 30 October 2010 - 11:02 PM.

[Rational Madman]

As far as Bush... it's all about money, he's corrupt and probably allied himself with a couple corporations who are profiting from this war like crazy. The main risk of going into Iran and Syria obviously stems from republicans (I've even seen a video of the consequences and plans of invading Iran), but at the same token we can't turn our heads to fundamentalists gaining nuclear power... so would you prefer allowing them to gain nuclear power and then risking national security?

I have a hard time figuring Bush out. With the kind of wealth and power connections in his background, despite his faux cowboy persona, I can't see money playing that big a role with him. I honestly think that deep down, his End Times Christianist Nutcase beliefs have something to do with it. I have heard it said that despite appearances, "he's really smart". I don't buy it. I think that he is a tool, and has been played masterfully by the Neocons. Cheney is another case altogether.

I don't think that with an insane fool like Ahmedinejad spouting off the way he does that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weaponry. Ahmedinejad is an example of long term (55 years, in this case) blowback. He is ultimately our creation. Kim Jong Il is probably even more crazy, though, but he's already got nukes. We sure dropped the ball there, but with him holding Seoul hostage, what to do? More blowback? America and Israel have a lot in common, not the least of which is that both our countries are being endangered by rightwing militants: The GOP and Likud.

Thanks for the video, progressive. People who want to start to understand this mess should learn about People for a New American Century (PNAC).

According to the most reliable accounts, the former President is indeed more cerebral in private, and apparently suffers from the difficulty of inarticulateness in public settings, which is understandable. To make the suggestion that public inarticulateness is linked to a lower intelligence quotient would be deeply unfair, without basis, and I imagine stemming from political bias. I would agree, however, that his Christian beliefs did indeed play an important role in decisionmaking, and a consequential foreign policy that had striking messianic features. But not every member of the Bush administration shared his Christian fervor, so the explanatory power of this thesis is limited. And as for his role in policymaking, there is ample evidence that the President played a decisive role, and pursued courses deeply at odds with his subordinates---the forced resignation of Rumsfeld, support of the surge in Iraq, the early detente with Putin's Russia, the support of the Road Map to Peace initiative, a significant increase in the foreign aid budget---especially related to Africa, and his use of a slow and deliberate multilateral approach against aspiring nuclear states like North Korea and Iran.

As for the question of our role in shaping the current state of affairs in Iran....

I think there were internal political dynamics in Iran that had little to do with the United States, and even with the absence of our sponsorship of a coup d'etat, would have led to the inevitable overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddeqh, who was an inept politician that alienated much of everyone in the Majlis by the end of his tenure. His story has parallels with coup targets that the United States had some peripheral or direct involvement with, and which involved mostly tipping the balance in the favor of the challengers. Which was a policy driven more by a desire for political stability than imperialism, and still consistently failed to lead to the surrender of sovereignty to the United States---since almost every so-called proxy power marched to beat of their own drum. Sure, we provided them with material support, and may have played a small role in prolonging the survival of their governments, but there were so many alternative streams of support that these states could've tapped into during the Cold War. So I'm dubious about the notion that we exercised considerable control over their domestic political behavior, or foreign conduct. The clandestine activities budget, and the funds allocated to foreign aid, after all, paled in comparison to that of the Soviets, which as a consequence, greatly limited our influence. And even if we took a tougher stand against the worst clients, what's the historical record for states succumbing to international pressure? By any serious estimate, it's a very sobering record. So this reality left policymakers with the unsettling choice of either supporting a state with hope of exercising some control over its aberrant behavior, or taking a principled stand, and watching the state's conduct worsen, and cringing as the state drifted into the orbit of strategic competitors. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi's Iran certainly fit this description, since he continuously failed to heed our advice regarding the handling of the opposition, on programs for modernization, and on the matter of nuclear proliferation.


And as for the relative craziness of nuclear aspirants, I think this is a false conclusion on what amounts to simply foreign and domestic posturing, not actual beliefs and intentions. Rather, both state's pursuit of nuclear weapons constitutes a rational choice of maximizing state power, and ensuring regime survival.

Edited by Rol82, 31 October 2010 - 06:22 PM.

[niner]

According to the most reliable accounts, the former President is indeed more cerebral in private, and apparently suffers from the difficulty of inarticulateness in public settings, which is understandable. To make the suggestion that public inarticulateness is linked to a lower intelligence quotient would be deeply unfair, without basis, and I imagine stemming from political bias.

As Forest Gump said, "stupid is as stupid does". It goes beyond mere inarticulateness in public settings, but then again, I suppose that's just my rabid and wild-eyed political bias talking.

As for Iran, my understanding is that the role of the CIA in the overthrow of Mosaddegh and the subsequent rise of the hated Shah is deeply embedded in the Iranian consciousness. That can't help but feed Ahmedinejad's power.

[Rational Madman]

According to the most reliable accounts, the former President is indeed more cerebral in private, and apparently suffers from the difficulty of inarticulateness in public settings, which is understandable. To make the suggestion that public inarticulateness is linked to a lower intelligence quotient would be deeply unfair, without basis, and I imagine stemming from political bias.

As Forest Gump said, "stupid is as stupid does". It goes beyond mere inarticulateness in public settings, but then again, I suppose that's just my rabid and wild-eyed political bias talking.

As for Iran, my understanding is that the role of the CIA in the overthrow of Mosaddegh and the subsequent rise of the hated Shah is deeply embedded in the Iranian consciousness. That can't help but feed Ahmedinejad's power.

Yes, but my point was that the fall of Mosaddegh was inevitable, and that in all likelihood, the rule of the Mohammed Reza Pahlavi would've been either self-perpetuating, or supported by another power---like the Soviet Union, whom he occasionally flirted with to aggravate us. Anyway, as a hegemon, we've become a predictible lightning rod for the world's malcontents, but our actual responsibility for many of the world's problems is often dubious. And I'm not entirely comfortable with equating a policy disagreement with stupidity, since you can't say that President Bush was the brain child of policies that were being fed to his administration by think tanks consisting largely of exceptional---albeit disagreeable---individuals.

Edited by Rol82, 31 October 2010 - 04:15 AM.

[niner]

According to the most reliable accounts, the former President is indeed more cerebral in private, and apparently suffers from the difficulty of inarticulateness in public settings, which is understandable. To make the suggestion that public inarticulateness is linked to a lower intelligence quotient would be deeply unfair, without basis, and I imagine stemming from political bias.

As Forest Gump said, "stupid is as stupid does". It goes beyond mere inarticulateness in public settings, but then again, I suppose that's just my rabid and wild-eyed political bias talking.

As for Iran, my understanding is that the role of the CIA in the overthrow of Mosaddegh and the subsequent rise of the hated Shah is deeply embedded in the Iranian consciousness. That can't help but feed Ahmedinejad's power.

Yes, but my point was that the fall of Mosaddegh was inevitable, and that in all likelihood, the rule of the Mohammed Reza Pahlavi would've been either self-perpetuating, or supported by another power---like the Soviet Union, whom he occasionally flirted with to aggravate us. Anyway, as a hegemon, we've become a predictible lightning rod for the world's malcontents, but our actual responsibility for many of the world's problems is often dubious. And I'm not entirely comfortable with equating a policy disagreement with stupidity, since you can't say that President Bush was the brain child of policies that were being fed to his administration by think tanks consisting largely of exceptional---albeit disagreeable---individuals.

My point is that if the Iranian public hated the Soviet Union and loved America, things would be better for us. If they simply didn't hate us for what they see as good cause, things would be better for us. Bush as brain child of policies? That isn't making sense to me. Individuals who are "exceptional" in some ways may still prescribe policies that are borne of failed ideologies and are predictably ruinous. When a leader cleaves to policies that are fundamentally broken, time and time again, I'm not entirely comfortable with labeling him "smart".

[Rational Madman]

According to the most reliable accounts, the former President is indeed more cerebral in private, and apparently suffers from the difficulty of inarticulateness in public settings, which is understandable. To make the suggestion that public inarticulateness is linked to a lower intelligence quotient would be deeply unfair, without basis, and I imagine stemming from political bias.

As Forest Gump said, "stupid is as stupid does". It goes beyond mere inarticulateness in public settings, but then again, I suppose that's just my rabid and wild-eyed political bias talking.

As for Iran, my understanding is that the role of the CIA in the overthrow of Mosaddegh and the subsequent rise of the hated Shah is deeply embedded in the Iranian consciousness. That can't help but feed Ahmedinejad's power.

Yes, but my point was that the fall of Mosaddegh was inevitable, and that in all likelihood, the rule of the Mohammed Reza Pahlavi would've been either self-perpetuating, or supported by another power---like the Soviet Union, whom he occasionally flirted with to aggravate us. Anyway, as a hegemon, we've become a predictible lightning rod for the world's malcontents, but our actual responsibility for many of the world's problems is often dubious. And I'm not entirely comfortable with equating a policy disagreement with stupidity, since you can't say that President Bush was the brain child of policies that were being fed to his administration by think tanks consisting largely of exceptional---albeit disagreeable---individuals.

My point is that if the Iranian public hated the Soviet Union and loved America, things would be better for us. If they simply didn't hate us for what they see as good cause, things would be better for us. Bush as brain child of policies? That isn't making sense to me. Individuals who are "exceptional" in some ways may still prescribe policies that are borne of failed ideologies and are predictably ruinous. When a leader cleaves to policies that are fundamentally broken, time and time again, I'm not entirely comfortable with labeling him "smart".

Yes, but their animus has several sources, and is much more complicated than ostensible anger over the American role in the 1953 coup d'etat, and its continued support of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Rather, there is a fundamental conflict in values, interests, and designs for the region, which form the basis of the ongoing conflict. That's why the ruling government has gone to great lengths to perpetuate the flames of hatred, and intentionally sabotages attempts at rapprochement. If we lived in an imaginary world where states didn't act according to interests, and where rivalry didn't stem from differences in the distribution of power, then you might have a point. But that's certainly not the reality. And as for the Bush administration, my point was that Bush wasn't the progenitor of ideas. Instead, a rather large group of PhDs with impressive scholarship under their belts formulated them, and although one may conclude their policy prescriptions to be inappropriate, I wouldn't go as far as stating that the ideas have a basis in stupidity, and that their authors by extension, are also stupid. Although these same people that you disparage clung to these policy assumptions in spite of the empirical record, I consider this behavior attributable to the all more common phenomenon of cognitive dissonance---which the right certainly doesn't have a monopoly over. So it's my view that dismissing both author and idea as merely stupid is equally lazy and bigoted.

[bsmith86]

First they invade than make an attack to that nation, but I guess interference of America in Syria matter will bring some benefits for Syria people.