Flickr

  • www.flickr.com
    Abiola_Lapite's photos More of Abiola_Lapite's photos

« The Nazi Roots of Korean Racism | Main | On The Art of Propaganda »

April 12, 2006

Comments

Matt

The previous Iranian president was clever, adroit at allaying suspicions, but this one let the cat out of the bag right away. This is really the final straw - if Iran gets the bomb, so will every other country in the world.

Abiola

In a way I suppose we ought to be grateful that a nut like this heads the Iranian government - Khatami's softly-softly style would have given much better material for the kumbayah-brigade to work with.

Isaac Schrödinger

Such politicians have neither the sense nor the courage to stand up in front of evil. They don't want to pay the cost in blood 'now'; thus, we'll all pay with added barrels later.

Steve Edwards

Iran can, and will, be deterred, just like the Soviet Union was adequately deterred (and just like Hitler most certainly would have been if nukes had existed in the 1930s). There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran wants a nuclear armageddon, even if it could actually precipitate such an event (for which neither this blog, nor anyone else, has actually shown any evidence). And I haven't seen anyone here contemplating the consequences for Iraq should we be so foolish as to bomb Iran to rubble.

I would have thought a regime such as Red China would be ten times more worrisome than Iran - especially as it has a proven recent history of state-state belligerence that is simply lacking in Iran's case - but we aren't talking about "striking" China, now, are we?

Abiola

"Iran can, and will, be deterred, just like the Soviet Union was adequately deterred"

Iran is led by a religious fanatic who sees "green auras" and donates money to foundations to prepare for the imminent return of the 12th imam. To compare such a state with one led by athiests with a fondness for Zils, dachas and girlfriends is as big a stretch as they come.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran wants a nuclear armageddon, even if it could actually precipitate such an event (for which neither this blog, nor anyone else, has actually shown any evidence)"

Yup, none whatsoever, other than the Ahmadinejad's own many well-publicized utterances; just keep your fingers in your ears and keep pretending you didn't hear anything.

"And I haven't seen anyone here contemplating the consequences for Iraq should we be so foolish as to bomb Iran to rubble."

1 - This presumes that Iran isn't already doing its best to destabilize Iraq, an assumption which flies in the face of both logic and hard evidence.

2 - Better that Iraq be thrown even into complete chaos than that a nuclear armed Iran should be free to foment mass terror throughout the world with impunity, to instigate an arms race as Sunni neighbors cower in fear of Shiite domination, and to exponentially increase the risk of nuclear war given the unstable regimes and fanatical populations which are typical of the Middle East.

"especially as it has a proven recent history of state-state belligerence that is simply lacking in Iran's case"

You have to know next to nothing to say something so ridiculous about a regime which started off by essentially seizing US soil (Iran hostage crisis), quickly followed it up by engaging in an 8-year war with Iraq, and throughout has funded and armed Hizbollah, Hamas and several other terrorist groups which have struck as far away as Argentina. Please do your homework before presuming to pass judgement on others much better informed than you are.

Won Joon Choe

Mr. Edwards,

1. You over-estimate the rationality of religious fanatics actuated by a chilliastic vision of the world. The Soviet Union was deterred but you can make the argument that the last genuine ideological Soviet died by an assassin's hatchet in Mexico. Stalin certainly was more a traditional Oriental despot, for a lack of better word, than an ideologue.

2. The subject of China is simply too big in scope to adequately deal within the constraints of a Blog reply. But two things. First, there has been genuine progress toward marketization and even liberalization, which may in the long-run lead to democratization. In fact, as many area experts have pointed out, contemporary China is closer to the regime of Park Chung Hee or Chiang Kai-shek than that of Mao. Second, even if you assume no democratization in the immediate horizon, the Chinese leaders in the post-Mao era have been pragmatic rather than ideological.

Won Joon Choe

Matt,

I am equally worried about the precedent set with the U.S. recognition of India.

Granted, India is distinguished by a democratic and largely-pacifist regime. It was also a case of simply bowing to fait accompli.

But I still think it is an extremely dangerous precedent. For instance, many in South Korea see this as an example par excellence of American double standard.

What does Washington say to the South Koreans when they push for a nuclear arsenal yet again? And can you imagine how bellicose Seoul will be when it has a nuclear arsenal?

Steve Edwards

"Yup, none whatsoever, other than the Ahmadinejad's own many well-publicized utterances..."

Okay, so where did Ahmadinejad actually call for nuclear armageddon? Where does he wish to incinerate both himself and the entire planet just to smite the "Zionists"? You still haven't provided any evidence for this.

"You have to know next to nothing to say something so ridiculous about a regime which started off by essentially seizing US soil (Iran hostage crisis), quickly followed it up by engaging in an 8-year war with Iraq, and throughout has funded and armed Hizbollah, Hamas and several other terrorist groups which have struck as far away as Argentina."

That's nice, but the problem is that Iraq invaded Iran, not the other way around. And Iran is certainly not alone in funding irregular armies (of which, by the way, I never claimed they didn't - I simply pointed out that Iran has no recent history of state-state violence), a tactic in which the United States government has plenty of experience itself.

On the alleged "threat" of Iran to world peace... The US Government now claims that it has the right to invade anyone it likes on suspicion of having "weapons of mass destruction", even if it means waging a preventative nuclear war.

To partake in something so nakedly criminal flies in the face of all standards of prudence and decency that should govern statecraft; anyone who acquiesces in such rampant insanity has no right to complain in the likely event of their constitutional rights being eviscerated wholesale.

Steve Edwards

"Iran must be attacked, all its nuclear facilities bombed to ashes, and the longer we wait to act, the less room for error we will have."

HA HA HA!! Total warmongering madness! I can already see the US Constitution in flames, thanks to people like yourself.

The sane generals in the JCS had better stage a military coup before these tyrants destroy the entire planet, because the public has long since lost its marbles.

Abiola

"Okay, so where did Ahmadinejad actually call for nuclear armageddon?"

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6286

"“One of the main reasons why the big powers oppose Iran on the nuclear issue is for the sake of the Zionist regime, so as to let this regime live on. But they are unaware that not only will the Iranian nation continue in the path of obtaining nuclear energy till the end, it will not even for one instant divert its attention from the issue of Palestine”."

The depths of your ignorance are outstanding, and it isn't my job to educate you if you're too lazy to learn more about the regime whose dangers you're downplaying.

"HA HA HA!! Total warmongering madness! I can already see the US Constitution in flames, thanks to people like yourself."

Drop the idiotic name-calling or get yourself banned pronto. If you don't have any sane arguments to make you'd best shut the hell up. I don't have time to waste on morons screaming "warmonger!" as if it were a serious attempt at convincing anyone of anything. Either provide rational arguments backed with solid evidence (i.e. references to articles, etc) for your case, or don't write anything whatsoever - my tolerance for content-free ad hominems of the sort of you've spouted here in response to serious attempts at engaging you is at an end.

Steve Edwards

That statement is so ambiguous as to be completely meaningless. He never said anything about using nuclear weapons against Israel - at the very worst it could be said the existence of an Iranian nuclear deterrent might force a certain constraint on the activities of the Israelis.

Once again, the warmongers have to provide evidence (especially libertarian warmongers) that the costs of their proposed strike on Iran is going to be lower than the benefits. So far the only side that has declared its hand in any meaningful fashion has been the Pentagon - which is already drawing up plans for a preventative nuclear war on Iran as we speak.

Abiola

I warned you about the ridiculous name-calling, but it seems you're constitutionally incapable of listening to advice. Goodbye - I'm not going to waste a minute more of my time on your content-free nonsense (I leave your final comment on here to serve as an examplar of the sort of blatant denial of reality typical of lame-ass "warmonger" bleaters willing to ignore any facts which get in the way of their inane sloganeering).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Notes for Readers