patrick.net

Well, I just don't think that calling people hypocrites is a very productive thing to do. I mean, are the Dems, the so-called party of the working stiff, hypocrites when rich elitists like Kerry and Dean run the party? ALL politicians are hypocrites.

The Boomers seem to think that hypocrisy is the greatest moral failing anyone can have. I disagree. All of us are fallable. You can't avoid having to confront tough moral questions by poiting out that the spokesman for one side or the other is not 100% pure.

Newsfreak-

I am not trying to be a jerk about this. The reason why I am pressing this point is becuase I think you are engaged in a form of denial becuase you do not want to confront the horrible issue of what to do about the Iranians and the bomb. It is an ugly choice. Do we bomb them, undobtedly killing a bunch of innocent women and children in the process -- accidents are inevitable in war however hard we try to prevent them -- or do we let the mullhas get the bomb?

But you have to confront it. Do we attack? Yes or no. There are only two answers. Reminiscences about the duck-and-cover drills of the 60's do not help us decide what to do about Iran today. Do we let them get the bomb or not? That is the question.

@Joe Schmoe,

Again, none of us here exactly knows what the "real" reasons for Iraq's invasion were; however, we do know what the Administration said on record in the months leading up to war. Regardless of the real reasons, and whether or not they turned out to be true, I despise being lied to and manipulated by my own government, especially for the purpose of going to war. Making an honest judgment call that turns out to be wrong is one thing, misleading/bullying a country into war is quite another.

Yes or no?

No

Well, he's the only president we've got right now. The Iranians are making the bomb NOW, TODAY, and they may not wait until a politican you like in office. That is not how the real world works.

Do we let them get the bomb or not?

Yes or no?

It's an awful nt question, but quoting 60's-inspired poetry will not help answer it.

Do you want to see Paris, or San Francisco, or Tel Aviv go up in a mushroom cloud? I guarantee you there are people in the Iranian government who would would love to see that.

Do we stop them from getting the bomb or not?

Do we bomb North Korea? They claim to have 4 or 5 bombs, intelligence backs that statement, he’s a whacko crazy dictator who says he has missiles capable of reaching the west coast of the US. Yes or No?

Well, it pretty much is binary.

With North Korea, the answer is no. Because they already have the bomb. If we leave them alone, we are taking a risk. Kim might lose it one day and decide to nuke Seoul, or Tokyo, or San Francisco. The odds of this are slim, because (a) it would lead to his destruction, deterrence does work, and (b) he hasn't yet. But the risk is there. If we eliminate the risk, on the ohter hand, we will have to kill millions and millions of innocent people. Also, we will have taken a step along the path of man's oblivion. We managed to stop 60 years ago, we don't want to start again.

But I do support military action against Iran becuase I don't want to see any more North Koreas and Pakistans. Two shaky third world dictatorships with nukes is more than enough for me, I am willing to start a lot of wars to prevent the emergence of others.

If we let countries like these get the bomb, I guarantee you that we will be nuked one day. They are corrupt and unstable, and those weapons are sure to fall into the wrong hands if they keep proliferating. Perhaps technological advances make this inevitable, I really don't know, but I want to do whatever we can to stop it.

I just think it is important to stop deluding ourselves into thinking that treaties, etc. will prevent these mad dictators from seeking nuclear weapons. Inspectors, etc., can slow the process down, but they can't stop it. The Iranians will never stop building the bomb, no matter what treaties we sign. The only way to stop them is by attacking. i don't think we have any other choice.

Tim-

No, I am a chickenhawk. A hypocrite. Can we stop attacking the messenger and get to the substance of my arguments now?

Ja, I like my posterboy, big muscly boy, give me credit, ja!

SFWoman-

No. Please see above, I think we were posting accross one another.

Well, it's like Trostky once said:

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

They are coming for us, it doesn't matter if we are tired of figthing.

Yes or no?
Do we let them get the bomb or not?

Joe,

I know you mean well here, but since when is it *our job* to determine which of the approx. 192 sovereign nations on earth has the *right* to own/develop nuclear weapons? Are we the world's mother?

Now, do I want an islamo-fascist theocracy like Iran to have nukes? No, of course not, no one in the West does. But before I start entertaining fantasies about "pre-emptive strikes" with tactical nukes, or unilateral Gulf War III, I calm myself and consider the following facts:

--There are currently at least 8 other countries with nukes, not all of them friendly to the U.S.: Russia, North Korea, Red China, India and Pakistan, Israel, Britain and France. You can also add South Africa, which had them, then later agreed to destroy its arsenal under U.N./U.S. pressure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

--Each decade, as the technology to build nuclear weapons improves and becomes cheaper (as all mature technologies do), this list is bound to grow longer over time, and there's little you and I can do to stop it. The nuclear genie's already out of the bottle, my friend, for better or for worse.

--Odds are eventually some maniac is bound to get his hands on a nuke and use it somewhere. Invading or tactically nuking other countries trying to build them isn't likely to prevent this from happening. In fact this can backfire, by telling these countries in essence that the ONLY way to avoid being invaded/nuked by the U.S. is to HAVE nukes.

I don't think the approach to this problem is strictly binary (yes/no, Invade/don't invade). If South Africa developed nukes and was talked out of using them, then there's hope for diplomacy yet. There's also the little matter of M.A.D. working powerfully in our favor, as it did during the Cold War. Even the craziest mullah knows that his people would not survive a nuclear strike against the U.S. Doing so would be suicide.

Joe...
Please do travel outside of American, also when you get some time, read some history books... your YES or NO questions sounds like the TV show Deal - No Deal, where clueless bet on things and end up making $50 bucks instead of $250,000

If US wants to impose its rule on other countries, I am not surprised why other countries do not want to impose their rule on US. They also have ideologies that want them to oppress the woman in this country. What is wrong with that...
Bush has and will continue to be a puppet and he is trying to make the people of this country as part of his puppet show. No coconuts or bananas for him. He wants Oil.

Joe, why are you quoting Leon Trostky? Do you want a permanent revolution? ;)

What justifies the fact the US can have Nuclear weapons but no other country could. I am surprised why no country is willing to invade US to get rid of its Weapons of Mass Destruction.

North Korea’s rockets can probably reach SF. Bomb North Korea??
Yes or No?

:lol:

I know you mean well here, but since when is it *our job* to determine which of the approx. 192 sovereign nations on earth has the *right* to own/develop nuclear weapons? Are we the world’s mother?

Yes. Not becuase we want to be, becuase we have to be. The US, the British, the Israelis -- these countries can be trusted with nukes. Iran, etc. -- we can't trust them.

Each decade, as the technology to build nuclear weapons improves and becomes cheaper (as all mature technologies do), this list is bound to grow longer over time, and there’s little you and I can do to stop it. The nuclear genie’s already out of the bottle, my friend, for better or for worse.

That may be true, but we can delay it for a long, long time.

Odds are eventually some maniac is bound to get his hands on a nuke and use it somewhere. Invading or tactically nuking other countries trying to build them isn’t likely to prevent this from happening.

Well, an Islamic terrorist isn't going to get one of our nukes, they are secure. Pakistan's? Iran's? I feel a lot less safe just thinking about that.

In fact this can backfire, by telling these countries in essence that the ONLY way to avoid being invaded/nuked by the U.S. is to HAVE nukes.

Yes and no. On the one hand, even though they claim to hate and fear us, most of the world's nations know they have nothing to fear. Canada, Japan, Sweeden, Australia -- these countries aren't rushing to develop nukes, beucase they know we are not an imperial power, we do not invade and subjugate others for the fun of it.

Evil dictatorships like Iran, on the other hand -- they do have something to fear. Also, I might add that Iran's program began long before we invaded Iraq. Heck, Iraq's program was in the 80's, long before anyone ever dreamed that US troops would one day occcupy the mideast. These dictators want weapons becuase they are evil and want to threaten and intimidate, not becuase they are afraid of losing their soverignty to the US.

I don’t think the approach to this problem is strictly binary (yes/no, Invade/don’t invade). If South Africa developed nukes and was talked out of using them, then there’s hope for diplomacy yet. There’s also the little matter of M.A.D. working powerfully in our favor, as it did during the Cold War. Even the craziest mullah knows that his people would not survive a nuclear strike against the U.S. Doing so would be suicide.

You are right, this is a powerful deterrent. But the people there are very crazy. The Russians didn't fly passenger jets into buildings, send suicide bombers, etc. The "leaders" in the middle east, like Arafat and Osama, are far less stable. We can probably deter many of them, but the risks are infinitely greater.

What justifies the fact the US can have Nuclear weapons but no other country could.

Power gives you justification.

It is not necessarily right. But that is the reality.

I think we should make English the official language, but additional legislation should be enacted which requires everyone to talk like a surfer.

Tim, please do expediate Joe's travel plans to Iraq.
I would like to hear his views after a year.

Yes, Tim, I know that. I do not have to serve in the military to know what death and destruction are all about. I have several friends who are serving right now. And if one of them dies, I think their deaths will have been worth it. I pray every day that they will be safe, but I would not change a thing.

Isn’t it time to start a less controversial thread … on immigration, for instance?

How about another sushi thread instead?

Well, an Islamic terrorist isn’t going to get one of our nukes, they are secure. Pakistan’s? Iran’s? I feel a lot less safe just thinking about that.

I concur, and would also add hundreds of small "unnaccounted for" tactical Soviet-era nukes and North Korea to that list.

Joe, I don't want Iran or OBL to get nukes any more than you do. Our difference in opinion lies mainly in that I don't believe we can achieve security solely by invade/bombing anyone that might have or want nukes. Terrorist groups are also far more likely than soverign countries to actually USE a nuke against us. Terrorists have/respect no borders, so we really don't have much defense against them (Q: where's OBL these days? A: not in U.S. custody.).

Security itself is really just a comforting illusion, IMO, though perhaps I'm just cynical.

Newsfreak
How true, and you all know what I mean if I say I'm having a Surfer-X kind of day...

Exactly, Iran has both money and power in terms of Oil reserves. Isnt that justification enough for them to have Nuclear Weapons. They need to protect their assets from being invaded and they are touting Nuclear technology as a deterrent.

US has enough lunatics as any other country so Nuclear technology is not safe with anyone.

or a Peter P. kind of meal..... :)

Isn’t it time to start a less controversial thread … on immigration, for instance?

How about a thread on gay handicapped, welfare-cheating, illegal immigrant abortion doctors who hate Christmas and are legally brain dead?

HARM
Okay.
but only if we get a visual.

I'm all over it. ;-)

Newsfreak
....and only the worst language can truly describe it...

BTW, Tim, I will address your offer. I don't want to go to Iraq any more. I asked two different people to help me get a job there; one worked for DynCorp, another for another contractor. Both told me where to send my resume, but neither could help, because they were ex-military guys and the companies they worked for dealt with former military people, not lawyers.

I also went to see the National Guard recruiter. I made an appointment and went over to the armory in Glendale, but no one was there when I arrived. Someone then called me, and promised to call back, but never did. A couple months later someone finally did call but he didn't seem terribly interested. I don't know why.

Sure, I could keep trying, but I don't want to. Why? Beucase I have a family. Two kids, ages one and three. I feel that I have a duty to my kids. I

went to see the recruiter knowing about this duty. I felt very conflcited. On the one hand, I thoght it was my duty to volunteer. On the other hand, I have kids. I figured I would talk to the guy about it and see what he had to say, I just felt very conflicted.

Since my efforts didn't pan out, I feel like I dodged a bullet. I did the honorable thing, and if they had accepted my application I would have gone. But because they didn't, I feel fortunate and don't want to push my luck. I don't want my kids to grow up without a father.

My friends in the military all have kids, so I am still torn. I went to my freind's wedding a couple of years ago, and it was filled with kids. This was really haunting becuase their fathers were all in the military. Some of them were just back from Iraq. They are still serving, maybe I should too. But I have decided not to go, not unless I am asked.

And anyone wonders why I became markedly apolitical.

I have one simple question, and I ask it as a non-ideological question, simply a logical question:

Why would our current leadership (and by "our" I mean the coalition that went into Iraq, not just the US) purport to go to such extremes to create evidential justification for an invasion of Iraq on a timetable which discouraged meaningful diplomacy, yet in every case the same leaders of various nations are sparing no diplomatic option to prevent aggressive, decisive action against Iran? Maybe the leaders are not hypocritical, but the strategy is either hypocritical or flawed.

Yes, this is why I choose to disengage from the political process. Logic is irrelevant, and my questions are usually waved away with "well, those in power know things we don't, so be thankful they are looking after you". I seem to recall from sixth grade that democracies aren't supposed to work that way.

Ja,

I have disengaged from ze political process also. See all girly boys in Sacramento must listen to my common wisdom of ze people, ja.

I am your action hero baby!

DinOR,

Save us!

I'm glad this blog is able to host a conversation on this topic, discuss the meaty stuff without meaningless platitude, and still avoid a flame war.

@astrid,

Agreed. It's nice to see that it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

newsfreak,

I know exactly what you’re talking about. I can’t even listen to news radio or watch TV news anymore. I would have died from soap poisoning if I kept listening to public radio.

HARM,

I really liked your arguments and completely agree with them. Trying to write another sovereign people's destiny never ends well. The Chinese are still fuming at the Brits for what happened in the Boxer Rebellion.

Thanks, astrid.
Changing the subject, check out the new graphic I added to Surefer-X's "I don’t even know what to think" thread! :-)

Very nice. I'm gonna go dig for a picture of a tinfoil hat now :P

HARM
You're funny!
Hey, now that we have HARM-GRAPHIX...we should get that sountrack going!

I guess we could start talking about negotiation techniques on this thread.