Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 306 Editor's Choice: 4
-
If we allow...
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If we allow iran to develop its nuclear weapons, won't the nuclear winter that follows the inevitable nuclear exchange with Israel solve our global warming problems?
Shouldn't all the greenies support iran's efforts?
-
@Aycharaych
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can you clarify please.
If we allow iran to develop nuclear weapons, are we then responsible for any ensuing use of those weapons?
-
@Mike Sulzer
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was just trying to raise questions. The debate about "what to do about iran" is far more important than the integrity of a particular journalist.
To answer your questions;
1. In what way is Iran a less responsible neighbor than Israel? Which country has more of a history of invading its neighbors?
In many ways. I wouldn't use "history of invasions" as a metric to measure responsibility. Here's one in Israel's favor; they have honored peace treaties with Egypt. They have a proven track record of settling differences with former enemies. Can you demonstrate a similar act of responsibility on Iran's part? Then there's democracy vs. theocracy.
2. Why does Iran have any less right to have nuclear weapons than Israel?
Possession of nukes is a right? Who bestows that right? This is a frivolous question. The questions to be answered are; are we better off stopping iran from obtaining nukes? and how far are we willing to go (what price will we pay)? Caricatures of neo-cons plotting a conspiracy in a dark room ignores the tough questions. It garners an emotional response, rather than a rational one.
3. Which side do you think would start the nuclear exchange? (That is, which government really thinks that obliterating itself is a good idea?)
The side the has stated, repeatedly, that Israel should not exist. Iran. . . . obliterating itself? you mean like the suicide bombers who board the buses in Israel?
4. Is it possible that US led invasions in the ME might cause countries there to seek better defense?
Wishful thinking, as if we hadn't invaded Iraq, that Iran would not have pursued nukes...You have to ignore a lot of history to draw that conclusion. Iran's efforts to obtain nukes pre-date Bush, by decades.
-
@Mike @Bald Eagle
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mike:
I don't know the entire history of who invaded who. I know that after Israel became an independent state all if its neighbors have attacked it. It has had to keep its guard up ever since. The fact that it has peacefully co-existed with Egypt, a former enemy, is an example of "responsibility" on Israel's part. As is the fact that it holds elections, and permits free speech and debate. If you want to argue that Iran is more responsible, be my guest.
If there is another question I did not address, ask again.
The Bald One:
Paraphrased from a philospy text: "A man stands on a bridge. He sees another man drowning in a cold, icy river below. Does he bear any responsibility by failing to act?"
To answer your question, of course we can do nothing...would you let the man drown?
If this is not analogous, you can certainly make that point, and give your explanation as to why.
Throwing around the "neo-con" label and hurling insults, doesn't accomplish much.
-
@Iokannan in the Well
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not typical of truly intelligent people to claim to know everything.
-
@Pedinska
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your last post proves my point about triggering emotional responses. Might want to consult with arne, he seems to have some knowledge about prospective treatment.
-
@Baldie
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"is it the now wakened man's responsibility to save the burglar/murderer of his neighbor? Especially when he recognizes the man as the murderer of his own father?"
Answer: No. He ain't worth saving.
You ask easy questions.
-
@Baldie - how does this FACT relate to middle-earth?
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1948 Arab-Israel War
Israel attacked by lebanese, syrians, iraqis, saudis, yemens, lybians, and egyptians.
Kind of a "welcome to the neighborhood" celebration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War#First_phase:_14_May_1948.E2.80.9311_June_1948
There's a bajillion other sources if you don't trust wikipedia.
-
@Iokannan
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't go easy. No reason to, and there's nothing to be learned by that approach.
We can talk forever about the other guy being the bad guy. That doesn't solve anything.
omooex talks about the PO'd arabs driven from their land, by the UN sanctioned creation of Israel.
So how do you fix that?....Iran has offered a solution.
Israel has learned to, has proven, to peacefully co-exist with its neighbors, when those neighbors act responsibly. Examples include Egypt, Jordan.
They could live with Lebanon, if the syrians quit stirring the pot (another nation seeking nukes).
Israel has tried to provide a homeland for palestinians.
They can't be expected to tolerate routine suicide bombers riding their buses.
Iran wants a really big bomb. I don't trust them. I can't imagine why anyone would.
-
@prunes
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]MAD implies trust. You trust your foe to not act in a manner that would harm himself.
Suicide bombers do worry about harming themselves.
Maybe the leaders of Iran will not mimic the suicide bombers that they brainwash, but there are other ways trust comes into play.
Assuming Iran develops a nuke, can we trust them to control what they have?. . .can we trust them to prevent others from using it?
It's not a pretty picture.
I don't trust Iran.
-
@prunes and mr. eagle
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From prunes:
"It's not about "trust", it's about M.A.D."
My comment re. trust was that MAD requires trust. Otherwise it doesn't work. You need to trust your foe to act rationally. Re-read your post, and don't be so quick to call me non-sensical.
Whether or not Iran can be trusted, is, I grant you, a matter of debate. I know of no way to empirically measure their trustworthiness.
If you want to trust Iran with the keys to the worst weapon known to man,...I'd like to hear your candidate say that.
How many other nations should have nukes? All of them? That way everyone is safe because of MAD?
In other words, do you think the nuclear non-proliferation treaty should be stood on its head?