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.

More here.

Comments

[Taktix?]

If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it....

Who needs evidence when you have the War on Terror strawman?

[Hugh Akston]

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.

[joe]

I can't believe we have to put up with these irresponsible bumblers for another 14 months.

[prolefeed]

I can't believe we have to put up with these irresponsible bumblers for another 14 months.

And replace them with responsible bumblers?

[Joshua Holmes]

Bumblers? This is intelligent, coordinated evil.

[joe]

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]

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.

[Taktix?]

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...

[ed]

I can't even name one.

[joe]

Please name period in the last 200 years when this does not apply...

[joe]

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?

[Taktix?]

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]

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.

[Alice Bowie]

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.

[Taktix?]

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?

[Alice Bowie]

I'm mostly retarded

[Rattlesnake Jake]

I understood everything Alice said and I agree with it all.

[J sub D]

Upgrade to mediocre? Oh, absolutely!

Seconded!

[An Arab]

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.

[VM]

um, dood. no empire is glorious.

[Alice Bowie]

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

[joe]

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.

[Alice Bowie]

America is not an Empire...it's a Constitutional Republic.

[Alice Bowie]

With a Sith Lord as Vice President

[Episiarch]

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.

[brotherben]

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?

[An Arab]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[An Arab]

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]

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.

[An Arab]

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?

[joe]

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.

[An Arab]

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?

[zig zag man]

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]

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.

[zig zag man]

....my momma's talking to me,
trying to tell me how to live....

still funny.

[Episiarch]

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]

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]

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]

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).

[An Arab]

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]

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.

[J sub D]

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]

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.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"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.

[joe]

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.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"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.

[Alice Bowie]

Thanks zig zag man

U r the 1st to notice in over a YEAR

U know who I am

[An Arab]

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]

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]

An Arab:

Oh, I see my mistake. I was dittoing all but the last phrase of that sentence that relates to you.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"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.

[An Arab]

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.

[J sub D]

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?

[Alice Bowie]

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]

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

[An Arab]

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.

[Alice Bowie]

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.

[An Arab]

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]

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.

[An Arab]

VM,

The quotes of me saying what I said, were not directed at you, but rather, to iih.

[An Arab]

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.

[just a fly on the wall]

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]

tee hee.

calling names. way to go. that'll learn me!

Now if you permit, I'm gonna listen to "Abba's greatest hits".

[An Arab]

Because you got nothing? Fine by me. 🙂