Letters to the Editor
-
More lame backpedaling
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.
Did prunes say that? I would have said disingenuous, or immature.
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.
Thank God you're not anywhere near the State Department or the CIA, then. Empirically measuring the intentions of foreign countries by their actions where we don't have high-level ties or well-placed spies is just one of the basic functions of a diplomatic/intelligence corps.
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.
Where to start ... Nukes have keys? Can I test-drive one?
Personally, I think propaganda is the worst weapon known to, uh, humankind. You know what I mean---the tasty factless beverage you drink daily.
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?
I don't understand this question at all. Clearly, only the United States should have nukes. Then we will be safe from all the bad men with guns.
-
What do you mean there's no Islamic Bomb?
Pakistan, that model of stability has quite a few. Of course if were Iran, what with high inflation, a need to import 80% of their refined oil products, 10%+ illiteracy, and surrounded by the following nuclear armed states: Russia, China, Pakistan and India, I would weigh carefully the advantages of deflecting internal dissatisfaction away to "Those Evil Joooz" (or any other foreigner for if nothing else Iranians are a proud, nationalistic and vaguely xenophobic group) against the downside of threatening to start an atomic war in the region, what with all those other countries who already have them.
See contrary to Salon's rabid antisemitic ignorance, it really is a very tough neighborhood all around. For example, when the IRGC says "We can absorb 80 nuclear strikes and survive" they should consider that India, China and Russia actually could and it's not rhetoric. On the other hand if you're going to play brinksmanship games with super powers you'd better be prepared to go all in. Maybe that will work for them.
-
it's kinda like "Murder on the Orient Express" ... everyone has a reason to want to shiv Iran ...
and "the USA" is head cheerleader, itching to volunteer to do the dirty work ... who ya gonna call to do your dirty work? haven't we ALWAYS been there for them?
Israel is our ally too ... imho, the Saudis are pretty despicable too.
You may despise Israel and the plight of the palestinians may be your reason why ... or maybe it's Pollard ... or the Liberty ... or something else ...
It's a nasty part of the world.
-
And how do you deal with the aftermath?
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.
Eminently true... but this is also true about every nation on earth. I don't know that Iran is especially "off the reservation" in this regard, but I'm no Iran expert.
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.
Let's be clear: I don't want to trust John McCain or Barry Obama with "the worst weapon known to man..." be that nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. That's not really the question, though. The question is what you do about it.
In other words, do you think the nuclear non-proliferation treaty should be stood on its head?
The NPT does not mention bombing. Again, what do you want to do about it? South Africa was persuaded to terminate their nuclear weapons program. North Korea may or may not be. Israel probably never will. Iran, India, Pakistan... who should get the air strikes?
The question, now as ever, is what we want to do about it.
-
AIPAC = The Neocons = The Israeli Government
"It isn't just the American neocons, but also the Israelis, who are escalating the "Attack Iran" campaign."
AIPAC, The American Neocons and the Israeli Government are interconnected to the point where it is hard to tell where one ends and the other starts. It is time we call things by their real names before we are royally screwed for the second time (this time it will be much worst than Iraq!).
-
@Susan
When WE took out Saddam we disrupted the status quo and made Iran much more powerful regionally...
And Iran is using the "soft power," low key strategies to grow their empire and influence quite effectively, the kind we used to rely more on. It is working out quite well for them. They learned much from the two former superpowers. (I'm starting to call us a former superpower. I'm always ahead of the curve). They are not the ones who lack sophistication in this confrontation. The Mayberry Machiavellis and their think tank whiz kids are way out of their depth in the big game of global geopolitics.
-
-- quickstrategy @10:18 AM
You're right about the visiting Nepalese Gurka, he would be be exposed to all the things you mentioned. And you're right that it should be natural for us to be curious about the citizens of another country, especially before waging war on them.
But, aside from the political election cycle coverage of 'the little guy' our media's relentless fascination is with our individual leader, not the population. Even the 'little guy' is really only compelling to our media inasmuch as they decide who 'the big guy' is.
When the little guy protested the war it didn't mean shit to the media, and when the little guy didn't buy into Bushs' social security scam month after month there was no outcry about it from the media and when the war became unpopular with even more of the little guys nothing changed.
And the media's view of other countries is seen through that same filter - the individual leader of the country. But even worse, it's the individual foreign leader in relation to our leader.
Do they agree with our president or don't they? Name any leader of any country and, if the average citizen recognizes them at all, they can probably identify only one thing about them - whether they are 'with us or against us'. And that, for the most part is because that is the extent of our media's interest.
Take Spain's Aznar for example. He didn't mean anything to our press except as a supporter of Bush's war. Nothing else was explored about that leader, and when he was ousted for lying to his public, it was the public who received the negative press, not Aznar. The fact that his people rejected him didn't have any significance to our media - only the fact that he had stood by our president. Aznar was only important in a supporting role, and the Spanish citizens not at all.
Every other leader in the world is just a character actor in our leading man's movie. And the citizens are simply extras.