Obama: "I have Israel's back" (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Is the U.S.'s complete refusal to even talk with Iran a good policy? Why do we talk to Israel but not Iran?

Under the Obama administration, we have not refused to talk with Iran. However, we do not treat Iran the same as Israel. This is mainly because Israel is our friend and represents the good guys in the region, while the current Iranian government is quite simply evil, and the main threat to the region. The fact that they are evil does not mean in itself that we shouldn't talk to them; if it serves our interest, then we should. At times it serves our interest to be allied with evil, as we were with Stalinist Russia, and as I believe we should have been with Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean we should treat them as equal to our friends.

why are they the good guys? that really doesnt make sense.

I know you don't think so. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the growing skepticism among American progressives about Israel. Today Israel is regarded by progressives as they used to regard South Africa: a representative of western imperialism in the third world, with all that entails. But it really is not so. The answer to your question is a long and complex one, and I tried to answer it with a thread about the history of Israel. But that task is beyond me. I urge you to read about how modern Israel came into existence, and her history. Don't read pro-Israeli sources, but don't read anti-Israeli sources either. There are plenty of respectable historians who have taken an even-handed approach. Howard Sachar is one example. If you immerse yourself in a fair history, I guarantee that any reasonable person will reach the same conclusion about Israel that I have- you may not agree with all of my particulars, but you will agree that they are, in fact, the good guys and deserve American friendship.

 

[The Z Machine]

I know you don't think so. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the growing skepticism among American progressives about Israel. Today Israel is regarded by progressives as they used to regard South Africa: a representative of western imperialism in the third world, with all that entails. But it really is not so.

That's not how progressives viewed S.A., nor how they view Israel now. The case against S.A. was much stronger than the case against Israel, as there were pretty clear moral imperatives to act to exclude apartheid S.A. from the community of nations. To suggest so as you have done above is a red herring to me.Personally, I view Israel as misguided, stubborn, divorced from reality, and just plain wrong in many cases, but their violations of human rights pales in comparison to S.A. Not many call the government of Israel illegitimate, but many said that about S.A. I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. What I don't support is the continued intransigence of Israel on the part of having a true two-state reality. It seems they put little effort into actually solving the problem, because they know that they hold the power, and the Palestinians have few cards to play. Finally, I don't like the blind support of Israel that many Americans (and especially those in government have). Many of those in the past that have criticized Israel have done so out of bigotry against Jewish people, but there are some real criticisms and nuanced views that I don't hear very much out of the members of the government. Some criticisms aren't born from antisemitism, but from legitimate issues and disagreements on policy. To put it succinctly, the influence of Israel on US politics is simply outsized for its role in world relations.

 

[urbanhack]

I know you don't think so. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the growing skepticism among American progressives about Israel. Today Israel is regarded by progressives as they used to regard South Africa: a representative of western imperialism in the third world, with all that entails. But it really is not so.

That's not how progressives viewed S.A., nor how they view Israel now. The case against S.A. was much stronger than the case against Israel, as there were pretty clear moral imperatives to act to exclude apartheid S.A. from the community of nations. To suggest so as you have done above is a red herring to me.Personally, I view Israel as misguided, stubborn, divorced from reality, and just plain wrong in many cases, but their violations of human rights pales in comparison to S.A. Not many call the government of Israel illegitimate, but many said that about S.A. I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. What I don't support is the continued intransigence of Israel on the part of having a true two-state reality. It seems they put little effort into actually solving the problem, because they know that they hold the power, and the Palestinians have few cards to play. Finally, I don't like the blind support of Israel that many Americans (and especially those in government have). Many of those in the past that have criticized Israel have done so out of bigotry against Jewish people, but there are some real criticisms and nuanced views that I don't hear very much out of the members of the government. Some criticisms aren't born from antisemitism, but from legitimate issues and disagreements on policy. To put it succinctly, the influence of Israel on US politics is simply outsized for its role in world relations.

Well said Z.

 

[SofaKings]

Has Obama visited Israel this term?

 

[timschochet]

I know you don't think so. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the growing skepticism among American progressives about Israel. Today Israel is regarded by progressives as they used to regard South Africa: a representative of western imperialism in the third world, with all that entails. But it really is not so.

That's not how progressives viewed S.A., nor how they view Israel now. The case against S.A. was much stronger than the case against Israel, as there were pretty clear moral imperatives to act to exclude apartheid S.A. from the community of nations. To suggest so as you have done above is a red herring to me.Personally, I view Israel as misguided, stubborn, divorced from reality, and just plain wrong in many cases, but their violations of human rights pales in comparison to S.A. Not many call the government of Israel illegitimate, but many said that about S.A. I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. What I don't support is the continued intransigence of Israel on the part of having a true two-state reality. It seems they put little effort into actually solving the problem, because they know that they hold the power, and the Palestinians have few cards to play. Finally, I don't like the blind support of Israel that many Americans (and especially those in government have). Many of those in the past that have criticized Israel have done so out of bigotry against Jewish people, but there are some real criticisms and nuanced views that I don't hear very much out of the members of the government. Some criticisms aren't born from antisemitism, but from legitimate issues and disagreements on policy. To put it succinctly, the influence of Israel on US politics is simply outsized for its role in world relations.

These are fine arguments. I disagree with your conclusions, but i respect your position much more than several I have read in this thread.

 

[tommyboy]

For the record, Israel's treatment of Palestine is one of the most disgusting human rights abuses in my opinion. If you haven't seen Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, you really owe it to yourself to check it out to see the reality of the dynamics between U.S., Israel and the Middle East.

not sure how you come to that conclusion. its not like Israel is gassing Palestinians and stealing their gold teeth.

Further arming Israel and occupying the Middle East is a laughable peace strategy. It's not unlike settling an argument between two neighbors by giving weapons to one and invading the other's house. I think Israel goes pretty far out of its way to wrap itself in the Jewish race and victimhood of the Holocaust, which makes it hard to fairly criticize it without being painted as an anti-Semite

I have no problem with Jews playing the victim card. They lost 4 million of their number while the world turned a blind eye.

. I would like to see peace in the Middle East and think our current policy is awful to that end. As per usual, looks like we're headed for yet another war with a Muslim country.

We can have peace in the M.E as soon as Iran stops threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

 

[Gawain]

I have no problem with Jews playing the victim card. They lost 4 million of their number while the world turned a blind eye.

I think the number is higher, but I disagree that the world turned a blind eye. The best way to stop the Holocaust was by winning the war.

 

[timschochet]

I have no problem with Jews playing the victim card. They lost 4 million of their number while the world turned a blind eye.

I think the number is higher, but I disagree that the world turned a blind eye. The best way to stop the Holocaust was by winning the war.

Not true. The best way to stop the Holocaust was to allow Jewish refugees to come to the United States, to England, and to Palestine. If this had happened, I firmly believe that the Germans would have hesitated with the death camps. The indifference of America and England, and the disgraceful way they turned away refugees from their shores (and from Palestine), created a situation in which the the Allies, sadly were in some ways complicit in the Holocaust. This is also one of the great moral justifications for the existence of the State of Israel.

 

[tommyboy]

I have no problem with Jews playing the victim card. They lost 4 million of their number while the world turned a blind eye.

I think the number is higher, but I disagree that the world turned a blind eye. The best way to stop the Holocaust was by winning the war.

Yes that's true but the systematic persecution of the Jews started in the early 30's and for the most part we ignored it.

 

[timschochet]

I have no problem with Jews playing the victim card. They lost 4 million of their number while the world turned a blind eye.

I think the number is higher, but I disagree that the world turned a blind eye. The best way to stop the Holocaust was by winning the war.

Yes that's true but the systematic persecution of the Jews started in the early 30's and for the most part we ignored it.

No it isn't true. Please refer to my above post.

 

[Gawain]

I have no problem with Jews playing the victim card. They lost 4 million of their number while the world turned a blind eye.

I think the number is higher, but I disagree that the world turned a blind eye. The best way to stop the Holocaust was by winning the war.

Not true. The best way to stop the Holocaust was to allow Jewish refugees to come to the United States, to England, and to Palestine. If this had happened, I firmly believe that the Germans would have hesitated with the death camps. The indifference of America and England, and the disgraceful way they turned away refugees from their shores (and from Palestine), created a situation in which the the Allies, sadly were in some ways complicit in the Holocaust. This is also one of the great moral justifications for the existence of the State of Israel.

Sure, we could have put the 10 million+ European Jews with the 1.5 million Circassians, the 2 million Armenians, the 750K Assyrians, the 10 million Ukranians and the 10 million+ Slavs that we should have taken in during that same time period. The quota act of 1921 was in place well before the Jewish people were known to be in danger. America had not yet assumed the role of world policeman and was in no shape to take on the role of world apartment building. To claim that Jews should have been allowed unlimited immigration is to either urge the US to take in all dispossessed peoples during the worst depression the country had ever known, a time when resources were stretched too thin with the people already present in the country; or to insist that Jews should have received special treatment at the expense of a host of other ethnic groups that were being slaughtered across Europe. Had Britain made peace after the Miracle at Dunkirk and had the US declined to enter the European theatre, the Holocaust would have been worse by a factor of at least 2. The policies of Britain and the US saved Jewish lives.As for the St Louis, none of the Jews on board were returned to Nazi Germany, more than 3/4 of the passengers survived to the fall of the Third Reich and very few had made even cursory immigration preparations. We still turn Cubans away. America simply can't take in all who want to come here, true in 1939 and in 2012.

 

[jon_mx]

What always amazes me is Obama's constant use of the word "I" and why no one calls him on it. Extremely arrogant. He saved the economy. He got OBL. He has Israel's back.

Do you have links to the "I" quotes on the economy and OBL?The right tends to attack him personally. He's not legally qualified to be president, he's a socialist, he's a muslim, he lies in his state of the union, he's weak on the middle east. Under those conditions, I don't think it's arrogant to use the word "I" occasionally.

I pointed this out the night OBL was killed, but because it was such an emotional accomplishment for the nation, only a few people including a liberal or two agreed. Here is the portion of the transcript of Obama speech from that night which talked about the effort to capture OBL.

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden the top priority of our war against Al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to Bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located Bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

Obama spent more time talking about his own actions than about the soldiers. Lots of I's and my's sentences. A few very short sentences about the troops, which should have been the main focus. Oh the media and most people here went on how brilliant the speech was. I saw it as a huge missed opportunity for Obama to deliver a truly inspiring speech which brought everyone together and would have been a signature moment in his Presidency. Instead he wasted it by patting himself on the back. Still a great accomplishment, but Obama whiffed IMHO.Just imagine, a team just wins the national championship and made lots of clutch plays to pull out the game. The coach goes to the press conference and spends most of the time talking about his game plan and the plays he drew up, and then in passing mentions that his players carried out his plans. A wise coach spends all the time talking about how great his kids played, and downplays what his role was.

And certainly you recall the silly rhetoric how obama told America how he drove us out of the ditch and the Republicans can't be trusted with the keys. Later went on and told the Republicans they could ride in the back of the bus.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Here is the portion of the transcript of Obama speech from that night which talked about the effort to capture OBL.

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice. We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

 

[ren hoek]

The CIA removal of Mossadegh was, in retrospect, probably not the smartest of moves by the Eisenhower Administration. But there were a lot of reasons for it at the time, having to do with the Cold War. It was not a "terrible, terrible" policy, as Ren puts it. And despite the fact that it is used continually to justify Iranian animosity toward the United States, this really is not so. Almost every democratic reform that Mossadegh attempted was later adopted in the early 1960s in the Shah's White Revolution, which was supported by the United States. These reforms, which included equality for women, voting power for all Iranians, and the education of the Iranian masses, were all opposed by the Ayatollahs, and this is the reason that they began to call America "the Great Satan." They don't hate us because we helped overthrow Mossadegh; that's just a sorry excuse. They hate us because we tried to help the Shah bring western civilization to Iran, and they saw that, correctly, as a threat to Islamist rule which relies on ignorance and hatred.

Who are we to tell them that their views on women's rights and education are wrong? You can't just overthrow governments you disagree with. Also, the Shah was a brutal dictatorship, not a bringer of democracy. The US and Britain didn't like the cut of Mossaddegh's jib when he nationalized Iran's oil (which was done with the overwhelming approval and popularity of the Iranian vote), rather than letting these "western democracies" molest them for their natural resources. So he was replaced. I'm having a hard time with this "US/Israel are the good guys" "Iran is evil" stuff. You can't seriously believe that.

 

[The Commish]

I know you don't think so. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the growing skepticism among American progressives about Israel. Today Israel is regarded by progressives as they used to regard South Africa: a representative of western imperialism in the third world, with all that entails. But it really is not so.

That's not how progressives viewed S.A., nor how they view Israel now. The case against S.A. was much stronger than the case against Israel, as there were pretty clear moral imperatives to act to exclude apartheid S.A. from the community of nations. To suggest so as you have done above is a red herring to me.Personally, I view Israel as misguided, stubborn, divorced from reality, and just plain wrong in many cases, but their violations of human rights pales in comparison to S.A. Not many call the government of Israel illegitimate, but many said that about S.A. I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. What I don't support is the continued intransigence of Israel on the part of having a true two-state reality. It seems they put little effort into actually solving the problem, because they know that they hold the power, and the Palestinians have few cards to play. Finally, I don't like the blind support of Israel that many Americans (and especially those in government have). Many of those in the past that have criticized Israel have done so out of bigotry against Jewish people, but there are some real criticisms and nuanced views that I don't hear very much out of the members of the government. Some criticisms aren't born from antisemitism, but from legitimate issues and disagreements on policy. To put it succinctly, the influence of Israel on US politics is simply outsized for its role in world relations.

Well said Z.

VERY well said The blind support and "benefit of the doubt" approach have to go. It's not benefiting us in any real qualitative way.

 

[ren hoek]

For the record, Israel's treatment of Palestine is one of the most disgusting human rights abuses in my opinion. If you haven't seen Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, you really owe it to yourself to check it out to see the reality of the dynamics between U.S., Israel and the Middle East.

not sure how you come to that conclusion. its not like Israel is gassing Palestinians and stealing their gold teeth.

Just look at the body counts man. Or failing that, watch the footage in that film of Israel bulldozing Palestinian homes, and replacing them with Jewish-only settlements. Those aren't the actions of a victim state.

We can have peace in the M.E as soon as Iran stops threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

Can I get a link to these quotes about Iran wanting to destroy Israel? Even if that were the case, don't you think Israel is capable of defending itself?

 

[SofaKings]

For the record, Israel's treatment of Palestine is one of the most disgusting human rights abuses in my opinion. If you haven't seen Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, you really owe it to yourself to check it out to see the reality of the dynamics between U.S., Israel and the Middle East.

not sure how you come to that conclusion. its not like Israel is gassing Palestinians and stealing their gold teeth.

Just look at the body counts man. Or failing that, watch the footage in that film of Israel bulldozing Palestinian homes, and replacing them with Jewish-only settlements. Those aren't the actions of a victim state.

We can have peace in the M.E as soon as Iran stops threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

Can I get a link to these quotes about Iran wanting to destroy Israel? Even if that were the case, don't you think Israel is capable of defending itself?

If you have to ask for quotes about Iran then you clearly don't know jack #### about the situation.

 

[ren hoek]

For the record, Israel's treatment of Palestine is one of the most disgusting human rights abuses in my opinion. If you haven't seen Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, you really owe it to yourself to check it out to see the reality of the dynamics between U.S., Israel and the Middle East.

not sure how you come to that conclusion. its not like Israel is gassing Palestinians and stealing their gold teeth.

Just look at the body counts man. Or failing that, watch the footage in that film of Israel bulldozing Palestinian homes, and replacing them with Jewish-only settlements. Those aren't the actions of a victim state.

We can have peace in the M.E as soon as Iran stops threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

Can I get a link to these quotes about Iran wanting to destroy Israel? Even if that were the case, don't you think Israel is capable of defending itself?

If you have to ask for quotes about Iran then you clearly don't know jack #### about the situation.

Then link it up. Inform me.

 

[SofaKings]

Wipe Israel off the map

More Recent

 

[ren hoek]

So a 5-word blurb taken out of context in 2005 is the rationale for invading a country in 2012.

And celebrating a film award = war propaganda? LOL.

 

[timschochet]

So a 5-word blurb taken out of context in 2005 is the rationale for invading a country in 2012.

And celebrating a film award = war propaganda? LOL.

Iran's attitutude toward Israel is NOT the rationale for invasion. In fact, there is no current rationale for invasion. There MAY be rationale for a strategic bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, but at this point I'm personally not convinced. But thanks, Mr. Paul, for bringing up a completely irrelevant point. As usual.

 

[timschochet]

I know you don't think so. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the growing skepticism among American progressives about Israel. Today Israel is regarded by progressives as they used to regard South Africa: a representative of western imperialism in the third world, with all that entails. But it really is not so.

That's not how progressives viewed S.A., nor how they view Israel now. The case against S.A. was much stronger than the case against Israel, as there were pretty clear moral imperatives to act to exclude apartheid S.A. from the community of nations. To suggest so as you have done above is a red herring to me.Personally, I view Israel as misguided, stubborn, divorced from reality, and just plain wrong in many cases, but their violations of human rights pales in comparison to S.A. Not many call the government of Israel illegitimate, but many said that about S.A. I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. What I don't support is the continued intransigence of Israel on the part of having a true two-state reality. It seems they put little effort into actually solving the problem, because they know that they hold the power, and the Palestinians have few cards to play. Finally, I don't like the blind support of Israel that many Americans (and especially those in government have). Many of those in the past that have criticized Israel have done so out of bigotry against Jewish people, but there are some real criticisms and nuanced views that I don't hear very much out of the members of the government. Some criticisms aren't born from antisemitism, but from legitimate issues and disagreements on policy. To put it succinctly, the influence of Israel on US politics is simply outsized for its role in world relations.

Well said Z.

VERY well said The blind support and "benefit of the doubt" approach have to go. It's not benefiting us in any real qualitative way.

The "blind support" was only attributable to one POTUS- George W. Bush. Every other President, including Obama, has given firm friendship but only conditional support.

 

[timschochet]

The CIA removal of Mossadegh was, in retrospect, probably not the smartest of moves by the Eisenhower Administration. But there were a lot of reasons for it at the time, having to do with the Cold War. It was not a "terrible, terrible" policy, as Ren puts it. And despite the fact that it is used continually to justify Iranian animosity toward the United States, this really is not so. Almost every democratic reform that Mossadegh attempted was later adopted in the early 1960s in the Shah's White Revolution, which was supported by the United States. These reforms, which included equality for women, voting power for all Iranians, and the education of the Iranian masses, were all opposed by the Ayatollahs, and this is the reason that they began to call America "the Great Satan." They don't hate us because we helped overthrow Mossadegh; that's just a sorry excuse. They hate us because we tried to help the Shah bring western civilization to Iran, and they saw that, correctly, as a threat to Islamist rule which relies on ignorance and hatred.

Who are we to tell them that their views on women's rights and education are wrong? You can't just overthrow governments you disagree with. Also, the Shah was a brutal dictatorship, not a bringer of democracy. The US and Britain didn't like the cut of Mossaddegh's jib when he nationalized Iran's oil (which was done with the overwhelming approval and popularity of the Iranian vote), rather than letting these "western democracies" molest them for their natural resources. So he was replaced. I'm having a hard time with this "US/Israel are the good guys" "Iran is evil" stuff. You can't seriously believe that.

The Shah was not a dictator; he was an authoritarian monarch. The current regime is totalitarian. And my main point, which you didn't reply to, was that the reason the ayatollahs despise us is who we are much more than any specific thing we did. I absolutely do believe Iran is an evil regime. They do evil things all the time. Any regime that uses religion as a means to impose horrific laws and punishments is evil, whether it's Islamist Iran, or John Calvin's Geneva (the closest Christian analogy I can come up with.) I absolutely believe that the United States and Israel have been forces for good in the world.

 

[The Commish]

I know you don't think so. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the growing skepticism among American progressives about Israel. Today Israel is regarded by progressives as they used to regard South Africa: a representative of western imperialism in the third world, with all that entails. But it really is not so.

That's not how progressives viewed S.A., nor how they view Israel now. The case against S.A. was much stronger than the case against Israel, as there were pretty clear moral imperatives to act to exclude apartheid S.A. from the community of nations. To suggest so as you have done above is a red herring to me.Personally, I view Israel as misguided, stubborn, divorced from reality, and just plain wrong in many cases, but their violations of human rights pales in comparison to S.A. Not many call the government of Israel illegitimate, but many said that about S.A. I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. What I don't support is the continued intransigence of Israel on the part of having a true two-state reality. It seems they put little effort into actually solving the problem, because they know that they hold the power, and the Palestinians have few cards to play. Finally, I don't like the blind support of Israel that many Americans (and especially those in government have). Many of those in the past that have criticized Israel have done so out of bigotry against Jewish people, but there are some real criticisms and nuanced views that I don't hear very much out of the members of the government. Some criticisms aren't born from antisemitism, but from legitimate issues and disagreements on policy. To put it succinctly, the influence of Israel on US politics is simply outsized for its role in world relations.

Well said Z.

VERY well said The blind support and "benefit of the doubt" approach have to go. It's not benefiting us in any real qualitative way.

The "blind support" was only attributable to one POTUS- George W. Bush. Every other President, including Obama, has given firm friendship but only conditional support.

Fortunately they aren't listening to our citizens. There are a lot of folks that are of the "give them our support by default, then evaluate". We need to understand how things have changed so we begin the evaluation process first to determine if they need our support.

 

[ren hoek]

So a 5-word blurb taken out of context in 2005 is the rationale for invading a country in 2012.

And celebrating a film award = war propaganda? LOL.

Iran's attitutude toward Israel is NOT the rationale for invasion. In fact, there is no current rationale for invasion. There MAY be rationale for a strategic bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, but at this point I'm personally not convinced. But thanks, Mr. Paul, for bringing up a completely irrelevant point. As usual.

Thanks for clearing it up there, Joe Lieberman. I'm sure we have 45 military bases surrounding Iran and are enforcing sanctions on them so that we can "strategically bomb" them one time. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL GUYS.

 

[timschochet]

I know you don't think so. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the growing skepticism among American progressives about Israel. Today Israel is regarded by progressives as they used to regard South Africa: a representative of western imperialism in the third world, with all that entails. But it really is not so.

That's not how progressives viewed S.A., nor how they view Israel now. The case against S.A. was much stronger than the case against Israel, as there were pretty clear moral imperatives to act to exclude apartheid S.A. from the community of nations. To suggest so as you have done above is a red herring to me.Personally, I view Israel as misguided, stubborn, divorced from reality, and just plain wrong in many cases, but their violations of human rights pales in comparison to S.A. Not many call the government of Israel illegitimate, but many said that about S.A. I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. What I don't support is the continued intransigence of Israel on the part of having a true two-state reality. It seems they put little effort into actually solving the problem, because they know that they hold the power, and the Palestinians have few cards to play. Finally, I don't like the blind support of Israel that many Americans (and especially those in government have). Many of those in the past that have criticized Israel have done so out of bigotry against Jewish people, but there are some real criticisms and nuanced views that I don't hear very much out of the members of the government. Some criticisms aren't born from antisemitism, but from legitimate issues and disagreements on policy. To put it succinctly, the influence of Israel on US politics is simply outsized for its role in world relations.

Well said Z.

VERY well said The blind support and "benefit of the doubt" approach have to go. It's not benefiting us in any real qualitative way.

The "blind support" was only attributable to one POTUS- George W. Bush. Every other President, including Obama, has given firm friendship but only conditional support.

Fortunately they aren't listening to our citizens. There are a lot of folks that are of the "give them our support by default, then evaluate". We need to understand how things have changed so we begin the evaluation process first to determine if they need our support.

We do this already. If by support you mean foreign aid, I think we should end that. I don't believe it's necessary. In terms of the public, I tend to agree with you that the blind support by a certain segment of Christian conservatives is not helpful to us, or to Israel.

 

[timschochet]

So a 5-word blurb taken out of context in 2005 is the rationale for invading a country in 2012.

And celebrating a film award = war propaganda? LOL.

Iran's attitutude toward Israel is NOT the rationale for invasion. In fact, there is no current rationale for invasion. There MAY be rationale for a strategic bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, but at this point I'm personally not convinced. But thanks, Mr. Paul, for bringing up a completely irrelevant point. As usual.

Thanks for clearing it up there, Joe Lieberman. I'm sure we have 45 military bases surrounding Iran and are enforcing sanctions on them so that we can "strategically bomb" them one time. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL GUYS.

It has everything to do with oil.

 

[matuski]

Once again it comes down to this - the middle east has been a perpetual mess for millenia, and we are not the ones to do anything to change that.

Stay out of the ME, nothing but trouble.

Said it before Iraq, said it before Afghanistan and Egypt, saying it now about Syria/Israel/Iran.

 

[The Commish]

I know you don't think so. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the growing skepticism among American progressives about Israel. Today Israel is regarded by progressives as they used to regard South Africa: a representative of western imperialism in the third world, with all that entails. But it really is not so.

That's not how progressives viewed S.A., nor how they view Israel now. The case against S.A. was much stronger than the case against Israel, as there were pretty clear moral imperatives to act to exclude apartheid S.A. from the community of nations. To suggest so as you have done above is a red herring to me.Personally, I view Israel as misguided, stubborn, divorced from reality, and just plain wrong in many cases, but their violations of human rights pales in comparison to S.A. Not many call the government of Israel illegitimate, but many said that about S.A. I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. What I don't support is the continued intransigence of Israel on the part of having a true two-state reality. It seems they put little effort into actually solving the problem, because they know that they hold the power, and the Palestinians have few cards to play. Finally, I don't like the blind support of Israel that many Americans (and especially those in government have). Many of those in the past that have criticized Israel have done so out of bigotry against Jewish people, but there are some real criticisms and nuanced views that I don't hear very much out of the members of the government. Some criticisms aren't born from antisemitism, but from legitimate issues and disagreements on policy. To put it succinctly, the influence of Israel on US politics is simply outsized for its role in world relations.

Well said Z.

VERY well said The blind support and "benefit of the doubt" approach have to go. It's not benefiting us in any real qualitative way.

The "blind support" was only attributable to one POTUS- George W. Bush. Every other President, including Obama, has given firm friendship but only conditional support.

Fortunately they aren't listening to our citizens. There are a lot of folks that are of the "give them our support by default, then evaluate". We need to understand how things have changed so we begin the evaluation process first to determine if they need our support.

We do this already. If by support you mean foreign aid, I think we should end that. I don't believe it's necessary. In terms of the public, I tend to agree with you that the blind support by a certain segment of Christian conservatives is not helpful to us, or to Israel.

When I say "we" I mean the citizens of this country and no "we" don't do that. There is still a ton of blind support people think should be there. ANY blind support is bad IMO. We can't afford to not analyze all our activity with other countries at the moment.

 

[SofaKings]

So a 5-word blurb taken out of context in 2005 is the rationale for invading a country in 2012. And celebrating a film award = war propaganda? LOL.

Your ignorance knows no bounds. I think your keffiyeh is too tight and cutting off oxygen to your brain.

 

[pantherclub]

On this subject Tim seems like a lunatic.

 

[ren hoek]

So a 5-word blurb taken out of context in 2005 is the rationale for invading a country in 2012. And celebrating a film award = war propaganda? LOL.

Your ignorance knows no bounds. I think your keffiyeh is too tight and cutting off oxygen to your brain.

 

[ren hoek]

Can someone photoshop a keffiyeh onto my avatar? THIS HAS TO HAPPEN

 

[Clifford]

The CIA removal of Mossadegh was, in retrospect, probably not the smartest of moves by the Eisenhower Administration. But there were a lot of reasons for it at the time, having to do with the Cold War. It was not a "terrible, terrible" policy, as Ren puts it.

And despite the fact that it is used continually to justify Iranian animosity toward the United States, this really is not so. Almost every democratic reform that Mossadegh attempted was later adopted in the early 1960s in the Shah's White Revolution, which was supported by the United States. These reforms, which included equality for women, voting power for all Iranians, and the education of the Iranian masses, were all opposed by the Ayatollahs, and this is the reason that they began to call America "the Great Satan." They don't hate us because we helped overthrow Mossadegh; that's just a sorry excuse. They hate us because we tried to help the Shah bring western civilization to Iran, and they saw that, correctly, as a threat to Islamist rule which relies on ignorance and hatred.

Who are we to tell them that their views on women's rights and education are wrong? You can't just overthrow governments you disagree with. Also, the Shah was a brutal dictatorship, not a bringer of democracy. The US and Britain didn't like the cut of Mossaddegh's jib when he nationalized Iran's oil (which was done with the overwhelming approval and popularity of the Iranian vote), rather than letting these "western democracies" molest them for their natural resources. So he was replaced. I'm having a hard time with this "US/Israel are the good guys" "Iran is evil" stuff. You can't seriously believe that.

The Shah was not a dictator; he was an authoritarian monarch. The current regime is totalitarian. And my main point, which you didn't reply to, was that the reason the ayatollahs despise us is who we are much more than any specific thing we did. I absolutely do believe Iran is an evil regime. They do evil things all the time. Any regime that uses religion as a means to impose horrific laws and punishments is evil, whether it's Islamist Iran, or John Calvin's Geneva (the closest Christian analogy I can come up with.) I absolutely believe that the United States and Israel have been forces for good in the world.

So does Israel. So does the United States. So does China. Are these also evil regimes? Seems like you are cherry-picking religion. What Israel does to Palestinians is evil. What we do to terror suspects is evil. What China does to Tibet is evil.You're getting into real trouble with the evil/good delineations.

Once you start calling some countries good and other countries evil, you are merely permitting evil to be done to the countries you consider evil, without any moral consequences. If assassinate an Iranian leader or scientist the act is not considered evil. If they do the same to us then it is they who are evil.

Sorry, this is just dumb. It's really beneath the points being discussed here, and automatically prevents the even-handed approach you say the situation needs.

 

[The Z Machine]

I know you don't think so. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the growing skepticism among American progressives about Israel. Today Israel is regarded by progressives as they used to regard South Africa: a representative of western imperialism in the third world, with all that entails. But it really is not so.

That's not how progressives viewed S.A., nor how they view Israel now. The case against S.A. was much stronger than the case against Israel, as there were pretty clear moral imperatives to act to exclude apartheid S.A. from the community of nations. To suggest so as you have done above is a red herring to me.Personally, I view Israel as misguided, stubborn, divorced from reality, and just plain wrong in many cases, but their violations of human rights pales in comparison to S.A. Not many call the government of Israel illegitimate, but many said that about S.A. I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. What I don't support is the continued intransigence of Israel on the part of having a true two-state reality. It seems they put little effort into actually solving the problem, because they know that they hold the power, and the Palestinians have few cards to play. Finally, I don't like the blind support of Israel that many Americans (and especially those in government have). Many of those in the past that have criticized Israel have done so out of bigotry against Jewish people, but there are some real criticisms and nuanced views that I don't hear very much out of the members of the government. Some criticisms aren't born from antisemitism, but from legitimate issues and disagreements on policy. To put it succinctly, the influence of Israel on US politics is simply outsized for its role in world relations.

Well said Z.

And I was 3 beers deep too.

 

[ren hoek]

The CIA removal of Mossadegh was, in retrospect, probably not the smartest of moves by the Eisenhower Administration. But there were a lot of reasons for it at the time, having to do with the Cold War. It was not a "terrible, terrible" policy, as Ren puts it.

And despite the fact that it is used continually to justify Iranian animosity toward the United States, this really is not so. Almost every democratic reform that Mossadegh attempted was later adopted in the early 1960s in the Shah's White Revolution, which was supported by the United States. These reforms, which included equality for women, voting power for all Iranians, and the education of the Iranian masses, were all opposed by the Ayatollahs, and this is the reason that they began to call America "the Great Satan." They don't hate us because we helped overthrow Mossadegh; that's just a sorry excuse. They hate us because we tried to help the Shah bring western civilization to Iran, and they saw that, correctly, as a threat to Islamist rule which relies on ignorance and hatred.

Who are we to tell them that their views on women's rights and education are wrong? You can't just overthrow governments you disagree with. Also, the Shah was a brutal dictatorship, not a bringer of democracy. The US and Britain didn't like the cut of Mossaddegh's jib when he nationalized Iran's oil (which was done with the overwhelming approval and popularity of the Iranian vote), rather than letting these "western democracies" molest them for their natural resources. So he was replaced. I'm having a hard time with this "US/Israel are the good guys" "Iran is evil" stuff. You can't seriously believe that.

The Shah was not a dictator; he was an authoritarian monarch. The current regime is totalitarian. And my main point, which you didn't reply to, was that the reason the ayatollahs despise us is who we are much more than any specific thing we did. I absolutely do believe Iran is an evil regime. They do evil things all the time. Any regime that uses religion as a means to impose horrific laws and punishments is evil, whether it's Islamist Iran, or John Calvin's Geneva (the closest Christian analogy I can come up with.) I absolutely believe that the United States and Israel have been forces for good in the world.

So does Israel. So does the United States. So does China. Are these also evil regimes? Seems like you are cherry-picking religion. What Israel does to Palestinians is evil. What we do to terror suspects is evil. What China does to Tibet is evil.You're getting into real trouble with the evil/good delineations.

Once you start calling some countries good and other countries evil, you are merely permitting evil to be done to the countries you consider evil, without any moral consequences. If assassinate an Iranian leader or scientist the act is not considered evil. If they do the same to us then it is they who are evil.

Sorry, this is just dumb. It's really beneath the points being discussed here, and automatically prevents the even-handed approach you say the situation needs.

 

[timschochet]

The CIA removal of Mossadegh was, in retrospect, probably not the smartest of moves by the Eisenhower Administration. But there were a lot of reasons for it at the time, having to do with the Cold War. It was not a "terrible, terrible" policy, as Ren puts it.

And despite the fact that it is used continually to justify Iranian animosity toward the United States, this really is not so. Almost every democratic reform that Mossadegh attempted was later adopted in the early 1960s in the Shah's White Revolution, which was supported by the United States. These reforms, which included equality for women, voting power for all Iranians, and the education of the Iranian masses, were all opposed by the Ayatollahs, and this is the reason that they began to call America "the Great Satan." They don't hate us because we helped overthrow Mossadegh; that's just a sorry excuse. They hate us because we tried to help the Shah bring western civilization to Iran, and they saw that, correctly, as a threat to Islamist rule which relies on ignorance and hatred.

Who are we to tell them that their views on women's rights and education are wrong? You can't just overthrow governments you disagree with. Also, the Shah was a brutal dictatorship, not a bringer of democracy. The US and Britain didn't like the cut of Mossaddegh's jib when he nationalized Iran's oil (which was done with the overwhelming approval and popularity of the Iranian vote), rather than letting these "western democracies" molest them for their natural resources. So he was replaced. I'm having a hard time with this "US/Israel are the good guys" "Iran is evil" stuff. You can't seriously believe that.

The Shah was not a dictator; he was an authoritarian monarch. The current regime is totalitarian. And my main point, which you didn't reply to, was that the reason the ayatollahs despise us is who we are much more than any specific thing we did. I absolutely do believe Iran is an evil regime. They do evil things all the time. Any regime that uses religion as a means to impose horrific laws and punishments is evil, whether it's Islamist Iran, or John Calvin's Geneva (the closest Christian analogy I can come up with.) I absolutely believe that the United States and Israel have been forces for good in the world.

So does Israel. So does the United States. So does China. Are these also evil regimes? Seems like you are cherry-picking religion. What Israel does to Palestinians is evil. What we do to terror suspects is evil. What China does to Tibet is evil.You're getting into real trouble with the evil/good delineations.

Once you start calling some countries good and other countries evil, you are merely permitting evil to be done to the countries you consider evil, without any moral consequences. If assassinate an Iranian leader or scientist the act is not considered evil. If they do the same to us then it is they who are evil.

Sorry, this is just dumb. It's really beneath the points being discussed here, and automatically prevents the even-handed approach you say the situation needs.

I should congratulate you for even agreeing that any of the above described actions are evil. Most progressives I know are extremely reluctant to even use the term these days. That being said, you're wrong. Yes, the United States and Israel do bad things from time to time, but these actions do not define them. The evil actions that Iran takes on a regular basis is part of their intrinsic makeup as an Islamist govenment. Simply put, Islamism, which is defined as the attempt to implement a 6th century stringent religious code of ethics upon a modern day 21st century civilization- is evil. The United States and Israel are great purveyors of international freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Iran is none of these things.

 

[timschochet]

The question of what we, or Israel, should do about Iran's nuclear program is an extremely difficult one. The first problem for me is that I don't know how close they are to obtaining nuclear weapons. I don't exactly trust conservatives who assure me they are very close, with good reason: because we know now that the Iraq war was based on a tissue of lies and misjudgments, by many of these same conservatives.

On the other hand, I don't exactly trust progressives and/or libertarians either when they assure me that Iran isn't close at all, because they also have an agenda that would prohibit us from taking action even if Iran IS close. So for me, their arguments hold little weight. Am I supposed to trust the IAEA and the United Nations? When have they ever been right about this stuff, or anything else? Am I supposed to trust the current Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu? Well, I don't. He's done some awful things as Prime Minister, and he's not a guy I particularly like. He may be a warmonger; I'm not sure. And of course, I certainly don't believe anything that comes from the Iranians themselves. They are an evil regime.

So I don't know WHO to trust, or who to believe. Here's what I do know: if Iran does obtain nuclear weapons, I believe they MIGHT use them eventually, which is unacceptable to me. Even if they don't, the fact that they have them will give the current regime enormous prestige in the Middle East, which I also find unacceptable to a degree. And it may spur on a nuclear arms race starting with Saudi Arabia, which I would prefer to avoid. Therefore, I am not opposed, in principle, to either America or Israel using military force in some manner to prevent this from happening. The devil is, of course, in the details.

 

[Clifford]

Why not listen to the International agencies set up to monitor this type of thing? In the leadup to Iraq we were told that these agencies were biased and not to trust them, in fact, not even to trust our own guys heading their inspection teams in Iraq (Scott Ritter). These agencies, and especially Ritter, told anyone that would listen that Saddam's stockpiles, such as they were, barely gave him the ability to cull his own populace, much less attack a well-equipped neighbor like Israel. Ritter and the UNSCOM inspection team were screaming that there were no WMDs from the rooftops, but they could not drown out the war drums of the Republicans.

Well, fast forward about ten years and you have the exact same situation, only no 9/11 to quell dissent. Both Israeli and US intel suggests that they are not in the process of building a bomb and that their nuclear program appears to be for civil purposes.

So this is when your "Iran is evil" philosophy really hurts: because there are so many people like you, this info won't matter. When it is presented, all that is needed is to say "sure, it looks that way now, but this is Iran we are talking about. They're an EVIL regime bent on the destruction of our allies, and they hate our way of life."

All of a sudden pertinent, reliable info takes a back seat to "preventive action" that will "save Israel," and next thing you know we are attacking a country that hasn't attacked us, or anyone for that matter for hundreds of years.

And yet you say that US and Israel are not intrinsically evil? What on earth is more evil that attacking and killing tens of thousands of people who have committed no offense to you whatsoever? Tough talk by a ridiculous dictator?

 

[SofaKings]

The question of what we, or Israel, should do about Iran's nuclear program is an extremely difficult one. The first problem for me is that I don't know how close they are to obtaining nuclear weapons. I don't exactly trust conservatives who assure me they are very close, with good reason: because we know now that the Iraq war was based on a tissue of lies and misjudgments, by many of these same conservatives.

On the other hand, I don't exactly trust progressives and/or libertarians either when they assure me that Iran isn't close at all, because they also have an agenda that would prohibit us from taking action even if Iran IS close. So for me, their arguments hold little weight. Am I supposed to trust the IAEA and the United Nations? When have they ever been right about this stuff, or anything else? Am I supposed to trust the current Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu? Well, I don't. He's done some awful things as Prime Minister, and he's not a guy I particularly like. He may be a warmonger; I'm not sure. And of course, I certainly don't believe anything that comes from the Iranians themselves. They are an evil regime.

So I don't know WHO to trust, or who to believe. Here's what I do know: if Iran does obtain nuclear weapons, I believe they MIGHT use them eventually, which is unacceptable to me. Even if they don't, the fact that they have them will give the current regime enormous prestige in the Middle East, which I also find unacceptable to a degree. And it may spur on a nuclear arms race starting with Saudi Arabia, which I would prefer to avoid. Therefore, I am not opposed, in principle, to either America or Israel using military force in some manner to prevent this from happening. The devil is, of course, in the details.

Why do you discuss this with folks who can't think rationally?

 

[timschochet]

Why not listen to the International agencies set up to monitor this type of thing? In the leadup to Iraq we were told that these agencies were biased and not to trust them, in fact, not even to trust our own guys heading their inspection teams in Iraq (Scott Ritter). These agencies, and especially Ritter, told anyone that would listen that Saddam's stockpiles, such as they were, barely gave him the ability to cull his own populace, much less attack a well-equipped neighbor like Israel. Ritter and the UNSCOM inspection team were screaming that there were no WMDs from the rooftops, but they could not drown out the war drums of the Republicans.

Well, fast forward about ten years and you have the exact same situation, only no 9/11 to quell dissent. Both Israeli and US intel suggests that they are not in the process of building a bomb and that their nuclear program appears to be for civil purposes.

So this is when your "Iran is evil" philosophy really hurts: because there are so many people like you, this info won't matter. When it is presented, all that is needed is to say "sure, it looks that way now, but this is Iran we are talking about. They're an EVIL regime bent on the destruction of our allies, and they hate our way of life."

All of a sudden pertinent, reliable info takes a back seat to "preventive action" that will "save Israel," and next thing you know we are attacking a country that hasn't attacked us, or anyone for that matter for hundreds of years.

And yet you say that US and Israel are not intrinsically evil? What on earth is more evil that attacking and killing tens of thousands of people who have committed no offense to you whatsoever? Tough talk by a ridiculous dictator?

As far as there being so many people like me, I doubt it. But in any case, I can't speak for them, only myself. And I would not be willing to take military action against Iran unless I was absolutely convinced that it was necessary. Right now, I am not convinced of that at all. I may be in the future, but I strongly doubt that I would ever be willing to go against Israeli and US intel if it remains what you suggest it is (the reports I have read on this are a little more conflicting than what you wrote, however.)I do not believe the United States should ever undertake military action to "save Israel". We can and should support Israel for taking action to save themselves, and we should take military action ourselves only when it is in our best interest to do so. That was not the case, IMO, in Iraq.

As per your last paragraph: I have no answer to the killing of innocent people. It is immoral. All war is immoral given this very simple but terrible question, because all war involves the murder of thousands of innocent people. Children who watch their mothers blown apart, mothers who see their children torn open- these are the realities of bombing. And it is horrible, horrible, and I won't try to excuse it under any circumstances because that would be horrible too. I wish we could live in a world without warfare. I don't know how to achieve such a world. Given the world that we do live in, I find that on an internet forum I can, theoretically, give you justification for this or that military action. But really there is nothing that can justify any of it. That's the most honest answer I can give you.

 

[pantherclub]

The CIA removal of Mossadegh was, in retrospect, probably not the smartest of moves by the Eisenhower Administration. But there were a lot of reasons for it at the time, having to do with the Cold War. It was not a "terrible, terrible" policy, as Ren puts it.

And despite the fact that it is used continually to justify Iranian animosity toward the United States, this really is not so. Almost every democratic reform that Mossadegh attempted was later adopted in the early 1960s in the Shah's White Revolution, which was supported by the United States. These reforms, which included equality for women, voting power for all Iranians, and the education of the Iranian masses, were all opposed by the Ayatollahs, and this is the reason that they began to call America "the Great Satan." They don't hate us because we helped overthrow Mossadegh; that's just a sorry excuse. They hate us because we tried to help the Shah bring western civilization to Iran, and they saw that, correctly, as a threat to Islamist rule which relies on ignorance and hatred.

Who are we to tell them that their views on women's rights and education are wrong? You can't just overthrow governments you disagree with. Also, the Shah was a brutal dictatorship, not a bringer of democracy. The US and Britain didn't like the cut of Mossaddegh's jib when he nationalized Iran's oil (which was done with the overwhelming approval and popularity of the Iranian vote), rather than letting these "western democracies" molest them for their natural resources. So he was replaced. I'm having a hard time with this "US/Israel are the good guys" "Iran is evil" stuff. You can't seriously believe that.

The Shah was not a dictator; he was an authoritarian monarch. The current regime is totalitarian. And my main point, which you didn't reply to, was that the reason the ayatollahs despise us is who we are much more than any specific thing we did. I absolutely do believe Iran is an evil regime. They do evil things all the time. Any regime that uses religion as a means to impose horrific laws and punishments is evil, whether it's Islamist Iran, or John Calvin's Geneva (the closest Christian analogy I can come up with.) I absolutely believe that the United States and Israel have been forces for good in the world.

So does Israel. So does the United States. So does China. Are these also evil regimes? Seems like you are cherry-picking religion. What Israel does to Palestinians is evil. What we do to terror suspects is evil. What China does to Tibet is evil.You're getting into real trouble with the evil/good delineations.

Once you start calling some countries good and other countries evil, you are merely permitting evil to be done to the countries you consider evil, without any moral consequences. If assassinate an Iranian leader or scientist the act is not considered evil. If they do the same to us then it is they who are evil.

Sorry, this is just dumb. It's really beneath the points being discussed here, and automatically prevents the even-handed approach you say the situation needs.

I should congratulate you for even agreeing that any of the above described actions are evil. Most progressives I know are extremely reluctant to even use the term these days. That being said, you're wrong. Yes, the United States and Israel do bad things from time to time, but these actions do not define them. The evil actions that Iran takes on a regular basis is part of their intrinsic makeup as an Islamist govenment. Simply put, Islamism, which is defined as the attempt to implement a 6th century stringent religious code of ethics upon a modern day 21st century civilization- is evil. The United States and Israel are great purveyors of international freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Iran is none of these things.

In the past 10 years we have completely leveled 2 countries and killed countless citizens that had never threatened the US. You can go back further for more examples. There are also egregious examples above about Israel. Please get off your high horse. kthanks

 

[timschochet]

The CIA removal of Mossadegh was, in retrospect, probably not the smartest of moves by the Eisenhower Administration. But there were a lot of reasons for it at the time, having to do with the Cold War. It was not a "terrible, terrible" policy, as Ren puts it.

And despite the fact that it is used continually to justify Iranian animosity toward the United States, this really is not so. Almost every democratic reform that Mossadegh attempted was later adopted in the early 1960s in the Shah's White Revolution, which was supported by the United States. These reforms, which included equality for women, voting power for all Iranians, and the education of the Iranian masses, were all opposed by the Ayatollahs, and this is the reason that they began to call America "the Great Satan." They don't hate us because we helped overthrow Mossadegh; that's just a sorry excuse. They hate us because we tried to help the Shah bring western civilization to Iran, and they saw that, correctly, as a threat to Islamist rule which relies on ignorance and hatred.

Who are we to tell them that their views on women's rights and education are wrong? You can't just overthrow governments you disagree with. Also, the Shah was a brutal dictatorship, not a bringer of democracy. The US and Britain didn't like the cut of Mossaddegh's jib when he nationalized Iran's oil (which was done with the overwhelming approval and popularity of the Iranian vote), rather than letting these "western democracies" molest them for their natural resources. So he was replaced. I'm having a hard time with this "US/Israel are the good guys" "Iran is evil" stuff. You can't seriously believe that.

The Shah was not a dictator; he was an authoritarian monarch. The current regime is totalitarian. And my main point, which you didn't reply to, was that the reason the ayatollahs despise us is who we are much more than any specific thing we did. I absolutely do believe Iran is an evil regime. They do evil things all the time. Any regime that uses religion as a means to impose horrific laws and punishments is evil, whether it's Islamist Iran, or John Calvin's Geneva (the closest Christian analogy I can come up with.) I absolutely believe that the United States and Israel have been forces for good in the world.

So does Israel. So does the United States. So does China. Are these also evil regimes? Seems like you are cherry-picking religion. What Israel does to Palestinians is evil. What we do to terror suspects is evil. What China does to Tibet is evil.You're getting into real trouble with the evil/good delineations.

Once you start calling some countries good and other countries evil, you are merely permitting evil to be done to the countries you consider evil, without any moral consequences. If assassinate an Iranian leader or scientist the act is not considered evil. If they do the same to us then it is they who are evil.

Sorry, this is just dumb. It's really beneath the points being discussed here, and automatically prevents the even-handed approach you say the situation needs.

I should congratulate you for even agreeing that any of the above described actions are evil. Most progressives I know are extremely reluctant to even use the term these days. That being said, you're wrong. Yes, the United States and Israel do bad things from time to time, but these actions do not define them. The evil actions that Iran takes on a regular basis is part of their intrinsic makeup as an Islamist govenment. Simply put, Islamism, which is defined as the attempt to implement a 6th century stringent religious code of ethics upon a modern day 21st century civilization- is evil. The United States and Israel are great purveyors of international freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Iran is none of these things.

In the past 10 years we have completely leveled 2 countries and killed countless citizens that had never threatened the US. You can go back further for more examples. There are also egregious examples above about Israel. Please get off your high horse. kthanks

I'm not on any high horse. Please step away from the moral equivalency arguments. They're not accurate.

 

[SofaKings]

The CIA removal of Mossadegh was, in retrospect, probably not the smartest of moves by the Eisenhower Administration. But there were a lot of reasons for it at the time, having to do with the Cold War. It was not a "terrible, terrible" policy, as Ren puts it.

And despite the fact that it is used continually to justify Iranian animosity toward the United States, this really is not so. Almost every democratic reform that Mossadegh attempted was later adopted in the early 1960s in the Shah's White Revolution, which was supported by the United States. These reforms, which included equality for women, voting power for all Iranians, and the education of the Iranian masses, were all opposed by the Ayatollahs, and this is the reason that they began to call America "the Great Satan." They don't hate us because we helped overthrow Mossadegh; that's just a sorry excuse. They hate us because we tried to help the Shah bring western civilization to Iran, and they saw that, correctly, as a threat to Islamist rule which relies on ignorance and hatred.

Who are we to tell them that their views on women's rights and education are wrong? You can't just overthrow governments you disagree with. Also, the Shah was a brutal dictatorship, not a bringer of democracy. The US and Britain didn't like the cut of Mossaddegh's jib when he nationalized Iran's oil (which was done with the overwhelming approval and popularity of the Iranian vote), rather than letting these "western democracies" molest them for their natural resources. So he was replaced. I'm having a hard time with this "US/Israel are the good guys" "Iran is evil" stuff. You can't seriously believe that.

The Shah was not a dictator; he was an authoritarian monarch. The current regime is totalitarian. And my main point, which you didn't reply to, was that the reason the ayatollahs despise us is who we are much more than any specific thing we did. I absolutely do believe Iran is an evil regime. They do evil things all the time. Any regime that uses religion as a means to impose horrific laws and punishments is evil, whether it's Islamist Iran, or John Calvin's Geneva (the closest Christian analogy I can come up with.) I absolutely believe that the United States and Israel have been forces for good in the world.

So does Israel. So does the United States. So does China. Are these also evil regimes? Seems like you are cherry-picking religion. What Israel does to Palestinians is evil. What we do to terror suspects is evil. What China does to Tibet is evil.You're getting into real trouble with the evil/good delineations.

Once you start calling some countries good and other countries evil, you are merely permitting evil to be done to the countries you consider evil, without any moral consequences. If assassinate an Iranian leader or scientist the act is not considered evil. If they do the same to us then it is they who are evil.

Sorry, this is just dumb. It's really beneath the points being discussed here, and automatically prevents the even-handed approach you say the situation needs.

I should congratulate you for even agreeing that any of the above described actions are evil. Most progressives I know are extremely reluctant to even use the term these days. That being said, you're wrong. Yes, the United States and Israel do bad things from time to time, but these actions do not define them. The evil actions that Iran takes on a regular basis is part of their intrinsic makeup as an Islamist govenment. Simply put, Islamism, which is defined as the attempt to implement a 6th century stringent religious code of ethics upon a modern day 21st century civilization- is evil. The United States and Israel are great purveyors of international freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Iran is none of these things.

In the past 10 years we have completely leveled 2 countries and killed countless citizens that had never threatened the US. You can go back further for more examples. There are also egregious examples above about Israel. Please get off your high horse. kthanks

And both countries are hotbeds of muslim extremism fueled by Iran. Afghanistan never threatened the US? Harboring Al Queda camps whose sole purpose was to launch terror attacks against the US is not threatening?

 

[Chaos Commish]

On this subject Tim seems like a lunatic.

Tim has his research so if you haven't done yours, or have and aren't willing to engage his controversial statements, then I agree discrediting him as a lunatic is a valid approach. A few years ago he cautioned my disapproval of neoconservatism as something that could be seen as antisemitic. We had a rational conversation. He agreed it wasn't antisemitic and even agreed with my grievances. Tim also isn't big on the orthodox settlement expansion or Likud in general, as I recall. He doesn't like Bibi as Prime Minister. He understands Israel is split politically like other countries and feels the wrong party is currently in power. Right, Tim?

I liked Bibi until his neocon ######edness was fully exposed by this annoying drumbeat for an inexplicably stupid preemptive war with Iran. Bibi's handling of Palestine has been fine, imo. A little brutal, but insisting on basic recognition before negotiating is common sense. Netenyahu has repeatedly offered an instant olive branch upon Palestine acknowledging Israel as a legitimate state. That's fair because not doing so implies Israel shouldn't exist.

Bibi's speech at AIPAC this week was as moronic, ignorant, specious, and likely disastrous as W's lamest efforts to sell us on the stupid war with Iraq. It was dejavu for me, and though I've promised to never be a political internet forum tool again, I may change my mind and freak out about this ####. Tim was right about Bibi. I was wrong. Although Tim now seems in hopeful denial of Israel's coming evil adventures.

I wish Ren or some other likeminded FBG was better versed on the story because Ron Paul's approach can chew up Tim and poop him out. It isn't worth more effort. But scan the links if interested.

Everything Middle East is nuanced with more than two sides to every story. All we can do with the history is defend it (like Tim, which given the state of things seems weak as hell) or attack it and speculate with what ifs. Like this. Had we never meddled in Iran (over oil nationalization and bogus commie fears) it's likely the revolution of 79 would be replaced at some point with something benign. Instead of the Ayatollah and fundamentalist dominionism, that thinking would be junked by secular, liberty minded Persians who revolted against the fanatics of their own 'democratic' accord, not via some international force. There's something Reagan could have supported eloquently that could have changed history for the better for Israel. Our meddling made such an outcome impossible. Some fear the commies would have won the cold war had we not meddled so much. Bah, we broke up a vibrant Iranian democracy over oil rights, if anything, making communism look better than our imperialism.

A dichotomy has always struck me curious but not enough to flesh out. Us Americans despise Marxist/Socialist/Commie stuff like a cancer for some valid reasons, but a primary chant is that "it doesn't work". Okay then, if it's going to fail why do we insist upon undermining it with coups d'état, covert and not so covert wars? It's going to fail regardless, so why send so much violence at it and direct so much hatred back at us? We make the idea socialism is inherently evil (it's not, btw) a self fulfilling prophecy. On top of that we make an international joke of our concept of liberty. It just isn't a funny joke to those who tell it.

The anti-western resentment surrounding the Shah, how he came to power, how he held it (not as rosy as Tim's portrayal) -- is very real to this day. It wouldn't be this way had we let nationalized oil/socialism run it's due course to failure. I doubt it ever would have been a problem. If we'd have just let them have the damn oil, Mossadegh, democratically elected and widely admired, would have been a far better ally for us than the Shah. They have the damn oil anyway, right? It didn't work, did it? Defending the coup is dumb. It takes courage to follow through with Ron Paul's ideas. Apply Paul historically and he makes sense while the cold war meddlers look stupid. It's not so scary.

The question of what we, or Israel, should do about Iran's nuclear program is an extremely difficult one. The first problem for me is that I don't know how close they are to obtaining nuclear weapons. I don't exactly trust conservatives who assure me they are very close, with good reason: because we know now that the Iraq war was based on a tissue of lies and misjudgments, by many of these same conservatives.

.

I'm a screw me once shame on me screw me twice shame on you kinda guy, so screw them. The whole game is more neocon fantasy. The dejavu is deafening. The mindless neocon mideast project still underway. Man, they're persistent and thickheaded. The White House won't be stupid now, so they'll do it through Israel. This isn't about Iranian nukes. That's just a frightful sales tool. And even if it was...

Sorry, this is just dumb. It's really beneath the points being discussed here, and automatically prevents the even-handed approach you say the situation needs.

I should have just said that.

 

[timschochet]

As usual, Chaos Commish, you make a number of thoughtful and provocative points. I disagree with several of them, agree with others, but we've been over all of that before. It doesn't really matter though, because I do agree with you on a couple of essentials:

1. I didn't like Bibi's speech either.

2. If the time ever comes for a military action against Iran, I don't think it's now.

On these fundamental points we can agree. I started this thread not to defend Israel or to call Iran evil (even though I think both are justifiable positions.) I started it to congratulate Obama's position on this. I think he is taken the exact right approach and has done so all along.

 

[pantherclub]

As usual, Chaos Commish, you make a number of thoughtful and provocative points. I disagree with several of them, agree with others, but we've been over all of that before. It doesn't really matter though, because I do agree with you on a couple of essentials:

1. I didn't like Bibi's speech either.

2. If the time ever comes for a military action against Iran, I don't think it's now.

On these fundamental points we can agree. I started this thread not to defend Israel or to call Iran evil (even though I think both are justifiable positions.) I started it to congratulate Obama's position on this. I think he is taken the exact right approach and has done so all along.

truly LOL funny

 

[tommyboy]

For the record, Israel's treatment of Palestine is one of the most disgusting human rights abuses in my opinion. If you haven't seen Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, you really owe it to yourself to check it out to see the reality of the dynamics between U.S., Israel and the Middle East.

not sure how you come to that conclusion. its not like Israel is gassing Palestinians and stealing their gold teeth.

Just look at the body counts man. Or failing that, watch the footage in that film of Israel bulldozing Palestinian homes, and replacing them with Jewish-only settlements. Those aren't the actions of a victim state.

We can have peace in the M.E as soon as Iran stops threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

Can I get a link to these quotes about Iran wanting to destroy Israel? Even if that were the case, don't you think Israel is capable of defending itself?

the body counts man....hmmm lets see. maybe 4000 palestinians have died since 1973. bulldozing homes? those aren't the actions of "one of the most disgusting human rights abuses". Maybe you should study up on the blood diamonds, ethnic cleansing in europe in the 90's, christian-muslim conflicts of recent african history, chinese history since 1930, russian history since 1900, and yeah, Germany's eradication of peoples from 1939-1945. as for the quotes about Iran wiping Israel off the map, google is your friend. The most recent pronouncement from Iran was this:

Khamenei reiterated Iran’s threat to wipe Israel — “a cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut” — off the map, and averred that Iran will aid any nation or group that attacks Israel.

and this from Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi

"Iran's warriors are ready and willing to wipe Israel off the map," he declared.

 

[ren hoek]

Nice one CC. I'm not as well-read on history as I'd like to be, and I think a big part of that is that I generally don't trust history itself. How can someone ever be certain who's telling the truth? For example, how will US history books recount the Iraq War in 20 years? Will they talk about how Saddam was evil and say the US freed the Iraqi people, or will they talk about the human rights abuses that took place and how it got us into a foreign policy quagmire? History books also paint Abraham Lincoln in a very favorable light but he was one of the most tyrannical presidents we've ever had (assuming Judge Napolitano was telling the truth on national TV, which I think he was). If you were left to your own devices, you'd think the Shah of Iran was a saint listening to Tim talk about him.

I get a lot more out of talking philosophy than getting into the minutia of history. I get the vast majority of my information from sources like youtube, documentaries, etc., but most of the time even those are substantiated by written articles and just the reality of the video itself. I have a pretty good eye for when I'm being lied to. But I still read stuff on occasion too. I feel like most of the principles I talk about with regard to foreign and domestic policy are self-evidently superior to their modern counterparts. I feel like it's a complete no-brainer that Iran has a self-preservation instinct and that it would never in a million years attack Israel knowing that Papa Bear will counterattack, for example. In short, I've always been more of a math/philosophy type than history/art, so take my posts for whatever they're worth (not much).

 

[tommyboy]

Well, fast forward about ten years and you have the exact same situation, only no 9/11 to quell dissent. Both Israeli and US intel suggests that they are not in the process of building a bomb and that their nuclear program appears to be for civil purposes.

this is untrue.