Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Is No Nukes Good Nukes in Iran?
Is Iran actually putting together nukes? All sides agree they'd like to, but beyond that it's unclear, reports the AP via the Detroit News:
Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if Iran were found to be working toward developing a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration announced harsh penalties against the Iranian military and state-owned banking systems in hopes of raising pressure on the world financial system to cut ties with Tehran.
[Atomic Energy Agency International head Mohamed] ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it....
'My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. As I said, the Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire," ElBaradei added.
|10.29.07 @ 7:58AM|#
If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome
seeing it....
Who needs evidence when you have the War on Terror strawman?
|10.29.07 @ 8:01AM|#
The Bush administration would never act on the mere
preponderance of weapons of mass destruction.
That would make it appear that they were trying to justify some
pre-determined plan to act against Iran.
|10.29.07 @ 8:54AM|#
I can't believe we have to put up with these irresponsible bumblers for another 14 months.
|10.29.07 @ 9:02AM|#
I can't believe we have to put up with these irresponsible
bumblers for another 14 months.
And replace them with responsible bumblers?
|10.29.07 @ 9:08AM|#
I'll tell you, having a responsible bumbler sitting the Oval
Office sounds pretty darn appealing. George H.W. Bush, John Kerry,
Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford.
Upgrade to mediocre? Oh, absolutely!
Episiarch|10.29.07 @ 9:14AM|#
Considering the increasing power of the Presidency, it's not
going to be bumblers who are most attracted to the position. The
real power-seekers are going to go after it with all they have,
because it is becoming more valuable to the power-minded.
Like Hillary and Rudy.
|10.29.07 @ 9:21AM|#
The real power-seekers are going to go after it with all
they have, because it is becoming more valuable to the
power-minded.
Please name at least four politicians to whom this does
not apply...
|10.29.07 @ 9:24AM|#
Remember back in the 1850s, when the presidency was so powerless and irrelevant that they could only get slacker performance artists to take the job?
|10.29.07 @ 9:28AM|#
Remember back in the 1850s
1980, when the presidency was so powerless and
irrelevant that they could only get slacker performance artists to
take the job?
Episiarch|10.29.07 @ 9:30AM|#
The presidency is a massively-scrutinized job with a lot of
(supposed) checks on its power. Previously, I would think that
being the Director of the NSA, CIA, or FBI would have been a more
pleasant spot for a power-seeker, as it is less scrutinized and a
little more under the radar.
The presidency is changing, though, with the claims of both broad
powers and no need for transparency from Bush and Co. That makes
the presidency more appealing to certain types than it used to
be.
|10.29.07 @ 9:32AM|#
If US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel, North Korea, India,
and Pakastan have NOT COMMITTED SUICIDE by ATTACKING ANOTHER
Nuclear Nation...I Doubt IRAN will.
The whole thing that IRAN is SUICIDAL is truly
American and Iraeli Propaganda.
I totally understand why America/Israel would NOT want IRAN 2 have
Nukes...They wouldn't b able to harass and even attack.
After what the US did to IRAQ...basically
destroying the entire country and Hanging the President (Sadam) on
You Tube...it doesn't suprise me that IRAN would want to aquire
NUKES.
Nukes guarantee ONE thing....NO country will attack u in U have
NUKEs.
You can b assured that BUSH and CHENEY new IRAQ had NO
WMD...B-cause had IRAQ had WMDs...we would have NEVER
invaded.
|10.29.07 @ 9:42AM|#
Alice Bowie,
Either you're spell check is broken, you are 7 years old, and/or
are retarded.
Not that I disagree with your points, but how did you post that?
With your Moto Razr?
|10.29.07 @ 11:08AM|#
I used to not care about US foreign policy.
In fact at times I actually defended it.
But expecially since 2003, when the US invaded Iraq, an Arab and
Muslim country, my mind changed about US intentions. Especially how
it was justified and re-justified over and over again, using
different pathetic excuses.
I am of the opinion now that the US is an Imperial power, who wants
to subjugate the entire Arab world, for:
1) Oil
2) Israel.
Of course, Israel has a powerfull lobby in Washington DC, and thus,
a substantial amount of influence.
There appears to be one constant in this world that everyone
listens to: Force. It truly is the cross-cultural language everyone
understands. This is what we need in the Middle East, to stop US
and Israel from bullying us.
Oh, how far we have fallen. The Arab Empire was once a glorious
one... now look at us. Sometimes, there is no one else to blame but
ourselves.
|10.29.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Gee. Mr Arab
I don't think things r that bad...
It's only a question of time until the Arab nations do come up with
a nuke...and we will have peace in the middle east. No one will
attack anyone.
Until then...war war war war war
|10.29.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Empires suck. They're expensive, take up all your time and energy, stain your honor, and get your young men killed year after year after year for nothing.
Episiarch|10.29.07 @ 11:23AM|#
But expecially since 2003, when the US invaded Iraq, an Arab
and Muslim country, my mind changed about US intentions.
So you only had a problem when a country with the same ethnic and
religious makeup as you was invaded? How utterly tribal of
you.
Oh, how far we have fallen. The Arab Empire was once a glorious
one... now look at us.
Bummer, dude. I weep each time an empire crumbles. Really.
|10.29.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Mayhaps if the U.S. was to sell the nukes to the Irans. we could get them to be allies. Ollie North could broker the deal?
|10.29.07 @ 11:44AM|#
So you only had a problem when a country with the same
ethnic and religious makeup as you was invaded? How utterly tribal
of you.
Not really Mr Episiarch, my heart hurts because USA is attacking
and killing my countrymen, people of my religion, on false and
Imperial grounds.
If USA attacked Luxemborg on same grounds, how would I feel? Yes,
it would be bad, and I would feel sorry for them, but I would be
more detached no? This is human nature.
Anyway, there is no ethnicity in Arab world, we have so many
actually, who are all Arabs. But its cultural aspirations of our
people, and we may have a common religion among most Arabs, but
what unites as it cultural, not ethnic.
USA also fighting a war on Islam itself as it seems. Not a month
goes by without me being asked why I dont 'condemn terrorism' from
otherwise normal individuals. If this is the citizenry, then what
about their government?
So USA attacking Islam. USA attacking Arabs. Doing Israel's dirty
work. If we were strong as back in the Empire days, this wouldnt
have happened, and Israel would have never existed. We would have
had great relations with USA as global partners. Islam is very
against communism, imagine what an ally you could have had in the
cold-war.
The fact of the matter is that talking has failed, and I cant trust
the US intentions of equality and justice for all anymore, (outside
its borders). So there is one solution: To stack up weapons, make
your country and Empire strong, and be prepared to defend yourself
from aggressors.
Your country is an Empire too now. You just dont see it because you
are on the inside.
R C Dean|10.29.07 @ 11:50AM|#
It's only a question of time until the Arab nations do come
up with a nuke...and we will have peace in the middle east. No one
will attack anyone.
That will only happen if everyone has nukes. Since the country that
does have a nuke will be inoculated against foreign "interference"
in its activities, I wouldn't assume that this will result in only
peaceful activities by said country.
Especially given the history of some of the countries in the
region.
Episiarch|10.29.07 @ 12:02PM|#
If we were strong as back in the Empire days, this wouldnt
have happened, and Israel would have never existed.
And if we were like those Empires in their halcyon days we'd have
levelled any country we set our sights on and killed as many people
as necessary to ensure compliance. Then we would have taken your
oil for our own. And we would have done it without breaking a
sweat.
But I'm very glad we're not like those old empires, and didn't do
that.
Longing for long-vanished Arab empire greatness is both stupid and
pathetic.
VM|10.29.07 @ 12:10PM|#
but "Arabs" aren't a monolith but ooh! you long for "our
empire". To quote our Czar/Emperor (local one), "that's silly.
silly"
the point about the silly fear of Islam in certain circles in the
US is very well taken, and you could argue that there is some
disproportionate Likud support in certain circles in DC, too.
The Pan Arabic empire thing is really silly, tho. (What, the
ottoman one? Byzantium?)
Let this fellow's email serve as a warning to the neo/theo con
types hier. Or for the "freedom fries" crowd. That's what you sound
like. Just as lame, just as pathetic, just as incapable of forging
diverse relationships.
Sad that you think that the point of the knife is the only way to
get things done. Check out the Timbro site and you'll see that free
trade and cultural interaction in the course of free exchange are
very powerful instruments of peace.
Syloson of Samos|10.29.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Anyway, ElBaradei makes a very good point - that there is no evidence that Iran is anywhere near the production of a nuclear weapon. Which means we have a significant period of time to suss out a deal with them.
iih|10.29.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Longing for long-vanished Arab empire greatness is both
stupid and pathetic.
Ditto (and this coming from an "Arab"). The problem with many Arabs
(unlike many non-Arab Muslims) is that they live in the past. They
live in the "if"and in the "when we were". Rarely do they live in
the "here and now". I am suspecting that "An Arab" is a 40-50+
immigrant Arab American or a very young son/daughter of one
(probably son though).
An Arab: Here is my advice. Your angry bitter rhetoric is
pointless. Think how, given the current situation and world affairs
and events, you (as an individual, on a personal level) can
contribute to a better conditions for yourself and your
co-religionists here and elsewhere in the world. The fact that you
and I are here in the US is that we believe that there is good in
this country. We believe that it has the potential of being better
and that, we, as citizens of this society, can make it even better.
So ask yourself how to do that constructively in the best possible
way that would be as inclusive of individual (not just Arab/Muslim
American) liberty and prosperity as you possibly can. This coming
from a fellow Arab and Muslim.
Hey and take it easy, chill!
iih|10.29.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Syloson:
Anyway, ElBaradei makes a very good point - that there is no
evidence that Iran is anywhere near the production of a nuclear
weapon. Which means we have a significant period of time to suss
out a deal with them.
Even better is the fact that he's getting media attention here.
Unlike back in 2002, those who spoke as El-Baradei is speaking now
where kept in the dark as far as US media was concerned. I remember
only NPR gave some attention to those who did not believe Iraq had
WMDs.
|10.29.07 @ 12:21PM|#
And if we were like those Empires in their halcyon days we'd
have levelled any country we set our sights on and killed as many
people as necessary to ensure compliance. Then we would have taken
your oil for our own. And we would have done it without breaking a
sweat.
Why break a sweat when your Arab puppets can do it for you?
If someone as much as even looks at the Saudi puppet-prince funny,
the wrath of USA is upon him. Why? When Saddam invaded Kuwait, you
protected them. Why? Then you decimated God knows how many Iraqi
troops and civilians. Why? Because someone dared to stand up to the
Arab puppets and their masters floating on boats in the Arabian
sea.
Empires were brutal before. Today, they are the same, but much
smarter. For example, it is much more cost-effective when you have
lackeys and puttets across the Arab world to do your bidding. And
anyway overall, it causes much less headaches for you. We are
supposed to face Mecca when we pray but your puppets prostate
towards Washington DC instead.
But I'm very glad we're not like those old empires, and didn't
do that.
So, I apologise to correct you on this, but the USA Empire is in
fact in the business of decimating and killing those who oppose
you, the only difference now is in being indirect.
If you are further curious, read about the rhetoric coming out of
your government during your 1973 oil crisis. Your Arab slaves and
puppets temporarily saw the light and dared to betray you, and what
did Washington do? Put together an invasion plan for the occupation
of all oil-producing Arab states, and their oil fields. Imagine.
How un-imperial and un-brutal of you.
Longing for long-vanished Arab empire greatness is both stupid
and pathetic.
I will gladly accept you calling me names. I accept this in stride.
What I am saying is not new, nor did I invent the impulse for
self-defence. If you want to call me names for wanting to defend my
people, my culture, and my religion, then go right for it. You
prove that I am right in my suspicions, and I accept this abuse
from you.
VM|10.29.07 @ 12:32PM|#
the act of longing for something is what's pathetic. We have no
idea about you, so nobody is calling you that.
However, it is revealing that you immediately go
into martyr mode when a position that you advocate is called to
task.
And quoting the end scene of "Three Days of the Condor" really says
you do have good taste in movies.
But the "oh woe is me" because the act of longing for a mythical
past is, as an act, lame really does prove that I'm right in my
suspicions, and I accept this abuse from you.
|10.29.07 @ 12:33PM|#
iih,
The problem with many Arabs (unlike many non-Arab Muslims) is
that they live in the past. They live in the "if"and in the "when
we were". Rarely do they live in the "here and now". I am
suspecting that "An Arab" is a 40-50+ immigrant Arab American or a
very young son/daughter of one (probably son though).
I dont understand you. What crime is there in looking unto ones
past and saying, "This is something I must strive for in my
future?"
Its funny you mention that I 'live in the past', because every else
I talk to says I am not.
I am probably the harshest critic of the Arab world and its
failures, and I spare no one in my analysis.
We need unity, for our defence. Every culture known since history
who has not been able to defend itself has evaporated or been
overrun.
Obviously, I am not one of those people who long for doing business
the same we the Empire did it long ago. Times have changed. People
have changed. Outlooks have changed. But if there is but one thing
we can take from our past, it was our integrity, and our capability
for defence.
As far as your request for me 'bettering the community we live in',
just what bearing does this have on this particular topic? And just
what do you know about my work in my community? In fact, just what
would you like to have me do anyway?
|10.29.07 @ 12:35PM|#
RC Dean,
That will only happen if everyone has nukes. Since the country
that does have a nuke will be inoculated against foreign
"interference" in its activities, I wouldn't assume that this will
result in only peaceful activities by said country.
Good to see you finally talking some sense about Israel.
An Arab,
In case you haven't noticed, my country has swung rather
dramatically against this imperialist war, and did so just as soon
as we realized that it wasn't actually a defensive action to
pre-empt an upcoming attack.
The imperialists got thrown out on their butts last November, and
are expected to get thrown out on their butts again in November
08.
|10.29.07 @ 12:36PM|#
VM,
the act of longing for something is what's pathetic.
Why is longing for something in the past pathetic?
However, it is revealing that you immediately go into martyr
mode when a position that you advocate is called to
task.
Martyr mode? The individual just kept saying it was 'pathetic'
without providing a reason, even though I had given him 3
paragraphs worth. What do you want me to do besides saying "Thank
you for your insults", and move on?
|10.29.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Alice Bowie;
Props for the obscure stoner Cheech and Chong reference in your
handle, it took a while for my neurons to recover that piece of
history.
Regarding the Iranian nukes....I wonder if there is a special phone
or light to call up Colin Powell, his nation needs him for the show
and tell before we throw down with Iran.
VM|10.29.07 @ 12:49PM|#
You don't understand why?
Wow. Talk about someone guilty of not being able to see cuz you're
on the inside.
It's martyr mode because you got called on wanting to have a
mythical past magically come to life - which is a silly thought -
and you start whining that you got personally insulted.
Hier's a suggestion:
1) Western Europe policies, behaviors, and history in colonial
lands has been terrible. We see latent racism from those days even
today.
2) we see new racism sprouting every day. We see ignorance and
deliberate fear mongering every day
3) we see how a militaristic society is a terrible idea
4) we get support of the idea that open dialogue, free trade, and
peaceful cultural interaction promote peace more than a knife
does
5) the US policies in the Near East have been affected by cold war
considerations in the past and are affected by some pretty twisted
fucks today
6) Antisemitic stances, beliefs, positions are wrong. For all of
your "your country is an empire", let's talk about antisemitism,
too.
7) Renouncing blowing up pizza parlors in Haifa is a good start.
Getting the Likud types to mellow and reconcile is also a good
step. But this Pan Arab dream you have is necessarily taking
responsibility for those terror acts in Israel. Or do feel that all
Israelis are guilty? Even those who supported Oslo? Again, pot
kettle by those who feel that way.
8) there is NO!!!! number 8
9) the three paragraphs worth of defending a mythical, magical,
only-imagined past only strengthened the claim that such wishes are
silly at best (think: those who wax nostalgic for the roaring 20s -
talk about a really fucking awful time if you weren't upper middle
class protestant (white) male). Pining for some glorious time from
back then is ridiculous.
As for the us as an empire - why do you think people are so afraid
of PATRIOT, wars of aggression, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, further
existence of NATO, torture, etc.
Most hier don't like those developments, and they tend to call
those feelings to task. Your fantasy about the Pan Arab empire
falls under that category. He was attacking the ideas, not the
utterer. And you took it personally. And went into martyr
mode.
Instead of realizing that he is also against empires.
That's why.
Episiarch|10.29.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Why is longing for something in the past
pathetic?
Because 1) it is in the past, and 2) most histories are
idealized and nowhere near as wonderful as nostalgia makes them out
to be.
I am probably the harshest critic of the Arab world and its
failures, and I spare no one in my analysis.
Your criticism seems to mostly be racial and tribal in that you're
pissed that a non-Arab non-Muslim country has significant influence
and involvement in Arab countries.
Sorry, dude, but I don't go in for collectivism of any kind,
especially racial or religious, and you seem to be all about
that.
Episiarch|10.29.07 @ 12:56PM|#
But I don't listen to her because my head is like a
sieve...
My daddy caught me in the bathroom with a pair of pantyhose...
iih|10.29.07 @ 12:58PM|#
As far as your request for me 'bettering the community we
live in', just what bearing does this have on this particular
topic? And just what do you know about my work in my community? In
fact, just what would you like to have me do anyway?
That is for you to answer. I don't know you or what your
capabilities are.
iih|10.29.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Sorry, dude, but I don't go in for collectivism of any kind,
especially racial or religious, and you seem to be all about
that.
Ditto! If every Arab and Muslim thinks of him/her self as an
individual and reach that individuality without compromising the
Arab/Muslim heritage AND the American identity (if you one is
Arab/Muslim American), and coming up with something totally unique,
beautiful and new, then we all make progress. Pan Arabism has
failed and was doomed to fail from the being because Arabs are not
uniform, are not similar, and share very little common heritage
(Egyptian heritage is way different than Saudi heritage, and both
are different from the Lebanese-- there right there in the middle
of the ME we have a ton of differences). The task now is to reclaim
or individualism (without having to tear each other apart (as what
is currently happening and has happened in Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon,
etc).
|10.29.07 @ 1:50PM|#
VM,
You initially said 'the act of longing for something is what's
pathetic.' This is a general statement. You didnt say 'The act of
longing for _Arab_Empire_ is pathetic'. So, I took it that you
meant this as a general statement, that, in general, any longing
for any past is always pathetic. This is why I asked why.
For example, a wife my long for the days when her husband didnt
become a drunkard. Whats wrong with that?
You make it sound (goes for you too iih), like longing for
something is mutually exclusive to working towards a betterment.
They are not.
I have come across many economists, who longed for a return to the
'most capitalistic period in US history', of the late 1800s. (As
in, no tort laws, etc). Now I am not an expert in economics, and I
dont know about this particular period, but there you have people
longing for the good-old days of (alleged) economic freedom. But
the point here is that there is a longing for something in the
past.
Your list of 8: Let me ask you something: Why are you associating
past European crimes against humanity with a future vision I have
of a united Arab federation or Empire or what-have-you? There is a
knee-jerk reaction of negativity when you hear 'Arab' followed by
'Unity' or 'Empire'. Why is that? I can almost predict the
response, but I would like to see what you say first.
I hadnt even begun to start talking about what I think this Empire
should stand for, before it automatically got associated with blown
up cafes in Haifa. Whats the real issue here?
In case you are still in doubt: I said it before. I dont want an
Empire for conquest. I want an Empire for our defence. Like the old
one. I dont want an Empire for subjugation of religions (yes, I am
sure it probably happened in the old one), but I want an Empire for
personal Jihad and self-betterment, like the old one. I want an
Empire for the conquest of science and technology, like the old
one. I want an Empire where our unique and great culture can
flourish, like the old one, where, people will talk about it 1000
years from now, just like we are today. Where we can contribute to
mankind and his explorations. This is my vision. But all this -
none of this - is every going to be possible, by the continued
onslaught of the Imperial USA, thanks to the colonial Israel. Its
funny you mentioned in Point#1 that colonialism was bad and evil,
but then complain when they get blown up. Make up your mind
please.
But this is my vision. Like I said before, we are currently
declawed. Like a healthy person will not get sick, but when his
immune virus is down, opportunistic viruses will invade. France did
in Algeria. England did. Israel came. USA came. But if we were
healthy, united and strong, this would not occur.
iih,
I dont buy this balogny about 'Arabs being too diverse ergo there
can be no unity'. Go and read some of the Federalist papers of USA
to see how even the founders talked about 'The diversity of
opinion' in his countrymen, but for the need for a Union to
safegaurd against 'Invaders from Europe' and against 'stupid
infighting and bickering'.
Its natural.
Epis,
Your criticism seems to mostly be racial and tribal in that
you're pissed that a non-Arab non-Muslim country has significant
influence and involvement in Arab countries.
Did you read my reply to you? Show where I am being 'racial'. And
iih, why do you agree with him when there is no proof of this?
iih|10.29.07 @ 2:28PM|#
An Arab:
And iih, why do you agree with him when there is no proof of
this?
I have not agreed or disagreed with him on that. But looking at it,
there seems to be undertones of that in what you write. I could be
wrong.
|10.29.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Pedant alert!
We are talking about IRAN folks.
Iranians are NOT arabs. They don't speek arabic
(except as a second language for some). They are Shia while most
arabs are Sunni. They are Persians and generally regard arabs as
inferior. If you don't believe me, call an Iranian citizen an arab
to his face. Then duck.
An Arab, how do you feel about a new Persian Empire? Inquiring
minds want to know!
R C Dean|10.29.07 @ 2:41PM|#
That's right, joe. Israel is the problem in the Mideast, not Syria, not Iran, not Saudi Arabia. Its the damned Israelis choking off democracy in Lebanon and supporting international terror networks.
|10.29.07 @ 2:45PM|#
"It's only a question of time until the Arab nations do come up
with a nuke...and we will have peace in the middle east. No one
will attack anyone."
Alice is right. That's what kept the US and the Soviet Union from
fighting each other directly throughout the entire Cold War.
|10.29.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Darn, a for a second there, I almost convinced myself you were
making a logical point about the logic of international
relations.
Sorry, RC, I didn't realize that the dynamics you described about
how a state with a nuclear monopoly operates completely cease to
apply when you decide that the state is question wears a white
hat.
Grown-ups realize that politics works the same way regardless of
your personal feelings about the players involved.
|10.29.07 @ 2:59PM|#
"That will only happen if everyone has nukes. Since the country
that does have a nuke will be inoculated against foreign
"interference" in its activities, I wouldn't assume that this will
result in only peaceful activities by said country."
A country with nukes would be foolish if they thought they could
get away with nuking another country or even threatening another
country with other countries with nukes that could retaliate
against them or threaten to retaliate against them. This would keep
the aggressor with nukes from using them or blackmailing
others.
|10.29.07 @ 3:13PM|#
iih,
I have not agreed or disagreed with him on that. But looking at
it, there seems to be undertones of that in what you write. I could
be wrong.
The phrase 'ditto', means 'I second that'. You dittoed his remarks.
Thus, you agreed with him. How can you say you neither agree nor
disagree? Am I wrong in this?
And please, quit judging me based on ambigous 'undertones'.
Americans do this to Muslims and here I am having it done to me by
another Muslim. Amazing.
If you have a question, ask it. Ill be more than happy to engage in
conversation. This is why I spend time writing here. Dont judge
someone without proof though. And you call yourself
Libertarian.
J sub D,
They are Persians and generally regard arabs as inferior. If
you don't believe me, call an Iranian citizen an arab to his face.
An Arab, how do you feel about a new Persian Empire? Inquiring
minds want to know!
To answer your question, culture-wise, Iranians have a penchant for
being pretentious. But that being said, the Lebaneese are widely
regarded in the Arab world as being the most pretentious Arabs too.
Every nation has its quirks. Call a Bahraini a Saudi and fists will
fly too. So that in and of itself means nothing.
Regarding their nuclear issue, if you had asked me 4 years ago, I
would have said Iran should not have nukes. But today, if Iran
wants to get nukes, I say God bless them. Israel has them afterall
dont they? And what right does one country have in telling another
not to have them? Iran would never attack the USA, so the US only
does this because of Israel. Otherwise, why would they care?
The day I switch on CNN and see Anderson Cooper in Tel-Aviv telling
us about how the UN is about to launch air-raids into Israel for
having nuclear weapons and failing inspections, is the day that I
will tell you Iran must not have nukes.
Until then, I will not support the hypocrisy, and the
divide-and-conquer paradigm.
Syloson of Samos|10.29.07 @ 3:15PM|#
R.C. Dean,
It is fair to say that Israel is part of the problem in the middle
east. Like all the nations of the region its government has made
errors which have contributed to the instability of the region. I
am more than willing to be convinced otherwise.
iih|10.29.07 @ 3:16PM|#
An Arab:
Oh, I see my mistake. I was dittoing all but the last phrase of
that sentence that relates to you.
|10.29.07 @ 3:21PM|#
"The imperialists got thrown out on their butts last November,
and are expected to get thrown out on their butts again in November
08."
And replaced by other imperialists.
|10.29.07 @ 3:22PM|#
iih,
Oh, I see my mistake. I was dittoing all but the last phrase of
that sentence that relates to you.
... and yet you copy/pasted it into your response in
italics...
Ok this is confusing, but if you are telling me now that you did
not mean to second his remarks, then thank you, and I accept your
apology.
|10.29.07 @ 3:42PM|#
To answer your question, culture-wise, Iranians have a
penchant for being pretentious. But that being said, the Lebaneese
are widely regarded in the Arab world as being the most pretentious
Arabs too. Every nation has its quirks. Call a Bahraini a Saudi and
fists will fly too. So that in and of itself means
nothing.
You miss my point. Both Saudis and Bahrainis are arabs and won't
get upset if referred to as that. Just like a Greek won't get upset
if you call hin a European. (Don't call him an Albanian
though.)
My point was simply, the IRANIANS ARE NOT ARABS.
Never have been, never will be. The Arab world either cheered or
were silent when Asswipe Hussein invaded Iran. When the thug
invaded Kuwait, then the Arabs noticed. If you think the west is a
demanding empire, wait until the Mad Mullahs of Tehran are calling
the tune.
Once again I ask, How do you feel about a new Persian
Empire?
|10.29.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Many Israelis (especially those under 40) think the Arab
Uprising is very unfair to them. These Israelis had NOTHING
TO DO with running the Palestinians from their
homeland....So why should they be held responsible.
Well, Oh Israel of 2-day, your founding fore-fathers left u with a
VERY BIG MESS yesterday. And like Americans (who have made
significant restitution to the African Slaves and American
Indians)...u may have 2 do same to keep the peace.
If White America treated Blacks and Indians the way Jews treat the
refugees...we'd have Antifadas here too.
iih|10.29.07 @ 3:57PM|#
An Arab:
Here is what I was dittoing (to eliminate any confusion):
Sorry, dude, but I don't go in for collectivism of any kind,
especially racial or religious
|10.29.07 @ 4:02PM|#
J sub D,
First off, you exagurate the animosity between Arabs and Persians.
My point about the Saudi-Bahraini example was that you will get the
same ferocious outcome in my example, as you would in yours. Hence,
being Arab or not is irrelevant.
Regarding Arab support for Iraq in the war with Iran, most of Arab
support came from Gulf Countries. Gulf countries used to belong to
Persia in the 1700s, but got retaken by Arabs later than century.
There is in fact a territorial dispute between Iran and some
islands of the UAE. Same for Saudi. They supported it based on
political gains for themselves.
By the same token, they were unsupportive of Iraq when he turned on
Kuwait, not because they care if he is Arab or not, but because he
threatened THEM. In fact, a great condemnation came from UAE,
Kuwait, and Saudi, because Iraq laid claims to them. Palestinians,
Jordanians, and Syria supported Iraq. So there wasnt uniform Arab
support.
Regarding the rise of Iran, (if you will let them), they are our
brothers in culture and religion. They want to rise, good for them.
You come from 10,000 km away to try to dictate who should support
what and why. Go back to where you came from. Yes we have problems,
but we dont want your help. We will in time, figure it out for
ourselves.
If you are going to come back and tell me 'Yes but they are evil',
then my answer is simply 'Better the devil that I know than the one
I dont.'
Anyway, the Islamic revolutionin Iran would have never been
possible without US policies with the Shah. You shoot yourselves in
the foot.
|10.29.07 @ 4:09PM|#
An Arab
Simply put, I don't think the Middle-east can be forced into
democracy and being Gentrified into America
East
As u mentioned, when the Shah was there...and they tried to
secularize IRAN...we ended up with the Fundamentalist...wanting to
bring back the days of cavemen.
|10.29.07 @ 4:16PM|#
J sub D,
Hence, being Arab or not is irrelevant.
Correction, this is supposed to say, being Arab is not
relevant.
iih,
I laugh, because you have added more confusion to me in your
'clarification post'. :) Am I to udnerstand you didnt support his
assertion that I am somehow collectivist racially without offering
proof? If yes, then good. That is the entirety of the issue. And as
per that, I accepted your apology.
VM|10.29.07 @ 4:29PM|#
JSub - absolutely - I have wondered how the Persians would
figure in here.
Alice - and gentrifying the middle east like that would be
horrifying! But the Brits and French couldn't do it, we can't
either (fortunately!!!) - and we shouldn't try! The cultural
diversity in our western cradle of civilization is far too
important and beautiful, and its very presence really can enrich
the world in tremendous ways!!
back to you An Arab
And please, quit judging me based on ambigous 'undertones'.
Americans do this to Muslims and here I am having it done to me by
another Muslim. Amazing.
You've switched from "Arab" to "Muslim" now.
Between that and the Persians, I'm getting lost in what you want -
it's a little fast and loose. I apologize if I'm missing
something.
I certainly am confused by what I perceive to be some (subtle)
venom in your words to me.
Anyways,
I suspect you're trying to find some sort of phrase I've used to
"prove" whatever you want. I'm assuming that you want to "prove"
some sort of anti Arab sentiment in what I'm saying.
If that is true: You have a preconceived notion of what you think
I'm saying, and you're going out to prove it instead of keeping a
dialog open. And it seems to me that you're totally content in
inserting "ambiguous undertones" in what I'm saying. yet you don't
like when you feel that's being done to you.
A common libertarian view is that through free trade, cultural
exchange, dialog, etc. animosity, distrust, and ignorance can be
reduced and eliminated. And mutually prosperous exchange can
happen. It also means, from the US perspective, understanding the
implications of previous policy choices, media portrayals (and
hysteria), and future foreign policy considerations.
To be sure, that reflection is necessary on all sides for
uninhibited, mutually-prosperous exchange to happen.
That concept applies here. And that, nothing more, nothing less,
was the point of my list of nine. No Arab enemies. No worries about
a Pan Arab free trade zone and cultural exchange (a la EU - but I'd
be worried about the size of the government, of course,
grin).
If what I was understanding in your post was correct, you cannot
find a cultural enemy here (maybe a political adversary, but not a
cultural enemy).
I have no desire to have amazingly interesting cultures languish
under dictators or non-Liberal regimes that, in part, get supported
or caused (Iran) by US policies (think: Castro is bolstered by US
policies towards him, while the Cuban people suffer).
I am a "the more the merrier" type, and I believe that the
opportunity to experience different cultures and getting to know
individuals is a tremendously rewarding experience, so the current
situation is nothing close to what I would want. Nor do I want a
war for oil, and I hate seeing the cycle of violence in Israel,
Palestine (deliberate inclusion), and Lebanon. Or with the Kurds.
etc.
I'm perfectly happy discussing how US policies (including certain
administrations favoring Likud policies) have helped keep the Arab
Man in the Street down. I'm perfectly happy discussing how Islam
gets savagely and wrongly misunderstood.
I'm perfectly happy talking about how wrong it is when people in a
US community all of a sudden become irrationally afraid if a Mosque
gets established. I cannot believe that behavior.
I'm perfectly happy talking about the US role in contributing to
the major problems in the area.
Are you willing to do the same for your side? Surely you must be,
especially since you're so entrenched in having a side that's so
strongly and emotionally tied to being the Other in this
situation.
Your side needs a "defensive empire" - surely you're open to
discussing how constituents of your "defensive empire" contribute
to the violence and hatred in the region.
Anyway, the Islamic revolution in Iran would have never been
possible without US policies with the Shah. You shoot yourselves in
the foot.
Totally agree. Same with Afghanistan and the Taliban and OBL. (I
have been typing as you were, so we both independently share the
view on the Iranian revolution)
(Since I don't feel "sides" in this battle, I'm also perfectly
happy discussing what I perceive to be Israel's and the rest of the
nations in the middle east's roles in the problems in the region.
That notion might be foreign to you, but that's how I roll)
In other parts of our talking:
Your guess at why you think I have a kneejerk negative reaction is
wrong. My kneejerk reaction is to the word "empire". Don't care
whose empire it is, including mine.
And it's interesting that you're reading an undertone into what
I've said to be anti Arab. The only undertones in our discussion
have come from you ("Why is that? I can almost predict the
response, but I would like to see what you say first.") - for
someone who's sensitive to feeling he is being subjected to that
treatment, it seems that you're willing to engage in that behavior.
(If I'm wrong, sorry - then realize that neither of us is doing
that)
I have not insulted you - or I certainly have not gone out to be
insulting and haven't intended to be, nor have I wanted to be - I
have disputed the notion of dreaming of a glorious past, to be
sure*. If that is insulting, how can we read your posts here?
Should we be insulted by what you have written?
If that is insulting to you, you're not ready for discussion where
there's bound to be disagreement.
You have no idea what my background is. You have no idea what I
feel (specifically) about US policy in the Near East. You have no
idea of any of that. You have no idea if or where I've traveled. No
idea of any of that.
I've read your most recent post - that sort of nationalism is not
something I support, here, there, or anywhere. Since you do support
it, you probably do understand why it exists elsewhere - and in
that scene, how do you see things progressing?
Probably pretty bleak.
bummer.
* you seem to have had a problem with this point. I object to these
types of hyper nationalistic, glorified past due to the violent
component of them, the rejection of anything negative done in the
past, and the assumed hierarchy of A is better than B which is
better than C. I don't share those views of (any) culture. And that
belief shouldn't be insulting, since there's no cultural or racial
hierarchy in my thinking.
|10.31.07 @ 11:17AM|#
VM,
The quotes of me saying what I said, were not directed at you, but
rather, to iih.
|10.31.07 @ 12:47PM|#
VM,
You've switched from "Arab" to "Muslim" now.
I havent 'switched'. I am both. Whats your point?
Between that and the Persians, I'm getting lost in what you
want - it's a little fast and loose. I apologize if I'm missing
something.
As I mentioned earlier, what I want is a great nation/Empire,
what-have-you, for us Arabs - to recapture our old glory, our
excellence in all fields of endeavour, and most of all, for the
preservation of our great culture that is under attack by
Imperialists and Zionists today, and god knows who in the future.
This is my goal, short and simple. And I already said this
before.
To make an biological analogy, I want the Arab world to have an
immune system.
I certainly am confused by what I perceive to be some (subtle)
venom in your words to me.
I am annoyed at you. More so at how you come off, versus what you
are saying. Your tone. I dont like it. The reason? For example, you
said before, "Any glorification of the past is pathetic". When I
asked a simple "Why", you answer was sarcastic and crass. Was that
necessary? I think not. Yet you did it. That is what annoys
me.
If that is true: You have a preconceived notion of what you
think I'm saying, and you're going out to prove it instead of
keeping a dialog open.
I didnt insert anything. I complained about you acting like a
dick.
Your side needs a "defensive empire" - surely you're open to
discussing how constituents of your "defensive empire" contribute
to the violence and hatred in the region.
How can they contribute to violence and hatred of the 'defensive
Empire' doesnt exist? This is what I mean about your attitude - why
you attach and associate 'defensive empire', or even what I told
you about need for Arab Empire, to hatred and violence? Why this
automatic attachment?
Your guess at why you think I have a kneejerk negative reaction
is wrong. My kneejerk reaction is to the word "empire". Don't care
whose empire it is, including mine.
Granted.
And it's interesting that you're reading an undertone into what
I've said to be anti Arab. The only undertones in our discussion
have come from you ("Why is that? I can almost predict the
response, but I would like to see what you say first.") - for
someone who's sensitive to feeling he is being subjected to that
treatment, it seems that you're willing to engage in that behavior.
(If I'm wrong, sorry - then realize that neither of us is doing
that)
In this particular point, you are wrong. Look, the issue isnt that
convoluted: You spoke. I spoke. You spoke some more. I asked a
question, and then mentioned I could almost predict the answer.
Whats wrong with that?
I have not insulted you
And I didnt imply that you did.
I have disputed the notion of dreaming of a glorious past, to
be sure*. If that is insulting, how can we read your posts
here?
Allah save me. My God. How many times do I need to tell you? I
asked 'why' to your statement of 'glorification of past is
pathetic', and here you are telling me that you disputed this
notion, which you only did much much later.
I've read your most recent post - that sort of nationalism is
not something I support, here, there, or anywhere. Since you do
support it, you probably do understand why it exists elsewhere -
and in that scene, how do you see things progressing?
First of all, just what it Gods name is 'Nationalistic' about what
I said? Since when does love of ones culture, and wanting to
protect it from foreign influence nationalisitic? And even if I
grant you that it is, half the world is like that, including USA,
England, Germany, etc etc. In those countries, nationalism is
rampant with right-wing parties.
And in fact, we currently have one of the most vehemently
nationalistic states on the planet right in our front yard named
Israel. Do you support Israel's right to exsit, the nationalist
country that it is? If so, then I am but no different. If they have
this right, then so do we, and I invent nothing new.
|10.31.07 @ 1:46PM|#
We're fucked. There's still too many people like this guy in
every nation, on every continent, of every race and every
religion.
Are they the majority?
Is there any hope for mankind?
VM|10.31.07 @ 2:46PM|#
tee hee.
calling names. way to go. that'll learn me!
Now if you permit, I'm gonna listen to "Abba's greatest hits".
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245