Fox News Watch announcer teased NIE discussion by referring to "Iran's nukes"
SUMMARY: On Fox News Watch, an announcer teased a discussion about coverage of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran by stating: "Iran's nukes. The president claims a new intelligence report proves Iran still dangerous." In fact, the NIE said: "We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon."
On the December 8 edition of Fox News Watch, an announcer teased an upcoming discussion about media response to and coverage of the December 3 release of the key judgments of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran by stating: "Iran's nukes. The president claims a new intelligence report proves Iran still dangerous." The announcer's statement was followed by a video clip of President Bush saying: "The Iranian government has more to explain about its nuclear intentions and past actions." In fact, the key judgments said: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. ... We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon."
Returning from commercial break, host Eric Burns said that the NIE was a "report from 16 separate intelligence agencies that indicates that Iran put a halt to its nuclear weapons program in 2003, which is even earlier than we had thought they did." Burns did not explain what he meant by the comment that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program "even earlier than we thought they did."
From the December 8 edition of Fox News Watch:
BURNS: This is a tough show, Rachel [Sklar, Huffington Post media editor]. This is a tough show. [Newsday columnist] Jim's [Pinkerton] dying to say something, and I --
SKLAR: I know you're --
BURNS: I'm not even going to look at him. We have to take a break now. We'll be back with this.
ANNOUNCER: Iran's nukes. The president claims a new intelligence report proves Iran still dangerous.
BUSH [video clip]: The Iranian government has more to explain about its nuclear intentions and past actions.
ANNOUNCER: He claims the report's a victory for him. What are the media claiming? Next on News Watch.
[...]
BUSH [video clip]: Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.
BURNS: That sounds clear enough, but what's confusing to some people -- especially some people in the press -- is that President Bush made that comment in response to a report from 16 separate intelligence agencies that indicates that Iran put a halt to its nuclear weapons program in 2003, which is even earlier than we had thought they did. Which means, Jim, that there's more controversy in the press because this comes at a time when the administration is trying to make us think, perhaps correctly -- you'll tell us -- that Iran is more of a threat than ever.
Bush is claiming this is a victory because of "tough diplomacy" and sanctions on Iran, both of which occured in 2006 (and maybe 2005), but Iran halted it's nuclear ambitions in 2003. Bush is making himself look like a fool by trying to link the two. That is unless Bush does have the ability to time-warp.
Puddinhead George can't travel through time, but he has the next best thing...Revisionist History and a gullible, misinformed political base.
TMan,
It would be great if you could show where you Bush statements came from. I hadn't seen that spin. Any help is greatly appreciated.
I have seen some right-wing pundits say that the timing of the Iranian stopping is about the same time as our liberation of Iraq. Coincidence? Gun boat diplomacy? Maybe.
What I find troubling is why the NIE report reversed itself. What caused it to change? Some pundits have said the lead writers have an anti-war political agenda. I'm not saying it is true, just that I have read this. Anyone heard any more regarding the NIE?
AA,
It is curious how both sides are playing this. If this report had confirmed the existence of weapons in Iran, the anti-war liberals would be saying "Well, you can't trust our intelligence, look how we screwed up Iraq".
And now the pro-war crowd is saying "Well you can't trust this report, Iran still hasn't come clean about their past actions"
Good points Tommy.
I don't trust anybody myself. Hey 6mts from now they might come back & say oh oops we have new intel.
Well, perhaps you're right about the hypothetical liberal reaction. But its irrelevant. The point isn't really that liberals are saying 'yes, you can trust this intelligence.' The real issue here is that Bush used 'intelligence' to justify the Iraq invasion, and now, despite 'intelligence' to the exact opposite, Bush has been promoting military action against Iran to protect against a non-existent nuclear threat.
Now that reality presents an intriguing question of WHY? Obviously, anyone with a sense of American imperialism in Latin America, the middle East, South East Asia etc etc, is probably quite unsurprised to hear Bush concocting lies about a supposed threat from Iran. We already did that once in 1954, and its no coincidence that Iran is now a radical theocracy.
I don't view it as irrelevant at all. Cherry picking intelligence to suit your poltical agenda is what got us in this mess in Iraq in the first place - I prefer our intelligence not be used for such purposes, regardless of who does it.
Well you didnt address what I said 'at all.' So well done to you. I found it utterly astounding that your reaction to the news that your commander in cheif is LYING about the threat posed about Iran is to insist 'oh, well, he may be lying, but Iran is still a threat.'
First of all, if he's not using intelligence to come to his conclusions about Iran, then what is he using?
and second of all, which country is really posing the threat here? To peace, to security, to the lives of innocent people? The country that is being lied about? Or the country that is lying to develop a military confrontation? WHo is the real threat to international peace? iTs pretty obvious to me. So while you sit on your ignorant high horse and pontificate about the threat posed about Iran, maybe you should get just a little bit irate, and do something about the lies of your own administration, who is taking your coutnry in the direction of a second failed war (and probably, because of US economic imperialism, the young men and women of some other countries too, like mine). Your prioritites are WAY out of order. It makes me a little bit angry.
I have already opined on Bush and this report last week - so you are off base. Go read it if you care to.
It makes no difference Tommy, didn't you know that America is at fault for all the world's problems. We are a bigger threat to peace than the radical islamics who want a nuclear weapon. I guess a state who sponsors terrorism wants a nuclear weapon for defense reasons only, or they want enriched uranium for energy when they have the second largest oil fields in the world. I get it now, America bad, theological madmen good. How could we miss that?
Yes, and of course we should implicity trust their leader - who would like Israel wiped off the map and denies the existence of the Holocaust.....a real stand-up guy, indeed.
Oh ok. so the fact that Bush is clearly lying to lay the foundations for a military confrontation in the most volatile area in the world (save maybe South Asia) makes the United States the good guys?
It may be hard to see through your own indoctrination, but you'd be surprised exactly how many problems the US has in fact created, including aiding and abetting the continued suffering of the Palestinian people, and the suffering of the Iranian people under a US backed dictator for 25 years. So excuse me if I'm a little bit agitated about the contemporary lies of your government.
Your agitation is somehwat misplaced. While every country has misgivings and makes mistakes, I believe the country I live in is the greatest nation in the world. Perhaps you could be somewhat objective and compare the good against the bad and see what you come up with. Perhaps you would be living under a Swastika if not for the god awful imperialistic nation bent on destroying peace called the United States of America.
You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. It seems that everytime a point about how the regime in Iran is volatile and dangerous the only rebuttal is "well Bush did this and Bush did that". Look we all know what kind of man and President Bush is. But to insinuate that Iran is somehow morally superior and less of a threat to world peace than the United States just shows a profound lack of knowledge in history and geo-politics. Such a view is also indicative of ideological and intellectual dishonesty, in my humble opinion of course.
>>Look we all know what kind of man and President Bush is. But to insinuate that Iran is somehow morally superior and less of a threat to world peace than the United States just shows a profound lack of knowledge in history and geo-politics.
That's just a general, Orwellian statement. What do you mean about a knowledge of "history and geo-politics?" besides a view that agrees with yours.
I don't think Iran is morally superior to the US (whatever that means), but who is more likely to start the next war, Iran or the US?
Are you serious? Do you not believe that from a historical perspective that the Unted States has in fact contributed far more than any other nation to peace. Or do you believe for instance that fighting WWII was just another imperialistic endeavor? Perhaps it is my view that from a geo-political perspective the United States on a whole is a better country than an oppressive theological regime who supports terrorism. I am comfortable with that view as it is based on clear and objective reasoning. The easist way to explain this is to ask yourself where you would prefer to live; Iran or the United States?
There is, chris, a massive massive difference between 'would you prefer to live in Iran or the US' and 'the US has contributed, by far, more to peace than any other nation.' THAT idea is utterly, utterly insulting to a total array of indigenous peoples, minority peoples, socialist peoples, democratic nations, citizens living under US-backed dictators.... the list is so vast it would make you shudder if you knew it.
Yes, the US fought and won on the clearly righteous side in World War II. But when did they become involved in World War II? When France was invaded? When the Jews were being massacred? When Western Europe was confiscated by facism? er, no, not quite...
So now this nations reluctance to become embroiled in a World War in 1932 somehow takes away from the fact that in the end we saved probably a billion lives, ended a regime who ruled through oppression and racial hatred on one end and and another who ruled like demonic locusts, devouring each nation for it's resources and leaving the people in slavery or dead. Winning was not good enough, huh? Because we did not become involved when you deem it necessry then that takes away from the nobleness of the sacrifice our nation made for the WORLD? Lovely.
As for my indication of comparing living in Iran or the United States that was directed to Funnypants, not you. Your response kind of destroyed the context, but anyway, again I will challenge you to for once look at the good things this nation has done throughout the world. Our humanitarian efforts are unprecedented and unequaled by any other nations in the last hundred years. How many lives have we saved, how many nations have we built and allowed for generations of people to realize a life of hope, liberty, and human rights? Yet, you want to focus on all the bad to paint your picture that America is a bad nation. Well, sir, I disagree vehemently. Who does the world look to when help is needed? Which nation was vital in ending the oppressive rule of the Soviet Union over billions of people giving them hope? But no, Iran and it's leaders who oppress it's people to a rule of harsh radical theology, in which the liberty you enjoy is only a dream to it's people is somehow a moral lighthouse and the United States is somehow beneath that. I disagree with that (your) supposition, sir.
What a bunch of ridiculous rhetoric! How many nations have we saved, you ask? How many nations have we invaded and how many democarcies have we overthrown and destroyed?
You are big on rhetoric, but i notice you do not contest that the US in fact is responisbilble for th deaths of 100,000 people in central America and 200,000 in E. Timior. That is just a start. We could talk about the US's overthrow of the Chilean government as well.
Apparently, in your eyes, war = peace.
Just how is the United States repsonsible for the deaths in Guatemala and E. Timior? Are you just repeating far left rhetoric or can you demonstrate how the United States military or it's agents killed those people. I guess when others kill it's America's fault. No such thing as personal responsibility huh? We can debate the responsibility of these deaths all day, we backed lots of foreign endeavors, are you going to blame America for the deaths in the French Revolution since we supported the revolution in the late 1700's? Your reaching and it's quite frankly disgusting to see you attempt to lay the deaths of millions at our feet while defending Iran. Each to his own I guess, the fact is that I love my country, fought for it, bled for it, and know it ain't perfect. I do know that it is the best around and the good outweighs the bad. For fun, can you demonstrate any good things this nation has done or are you just pleasantly stuck on highlighting negatives.
You don't know how the US was involved in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Indonesia, therefore, they weren't involved. The burden of proof isn't ours to bare, its yours, because we know something you don't know, but you don't know anything we don't know. You can't convince me of anything with rhetoric and 'show me this' questions.
That's ridiculous sir. The burden of proof is on you when you make specific accusations. I dare say that your position rests on which story you choose to believe in each instance. You see U.S. involvement in stopping the spread of communism in Latin America and subsequent wars, deaths, etc, as directly atrtributable to our this nation. Fine, I don't disagree to an extent. My question is why hasn't someone been held accountable for all these deaths? The executive branch oversees foreign policy. Pleas specifically explain how presidential policy in these specific examples somehow lead to presidential responsibility of hundred of thousands of deaths. We seen you historical revision with the atomic bomb analysis.
The burden of proof on me after you support a specific accusation, now that's a laugh. So if I don't support your position (which must be automatically right), I must prove my position but you don't have to prove yours, got it.
No, I just mean that I've already taken the time to learn and understand these issues, and you evidently haven't. So I'm not going to waste my time doing research for you, and I'm kinda bored of discussing it with you to be honest. But its bad, in a way, and someone does need to spoon feed it to you, because otherwise your 'our nation is the greatest nation on earth' rhetoric goes on and you keep voting for people who put you and a lot of other people at risk etc etc.
I know the issue sir, I haven't seen your specific adjudication as to how my country is responsible. All I see is you telling me that I don't know. You continue to call me ignorant because I don't agree with your beliefs? It's as if you would be pleased if I gave up and announced that America is really a bad place. Well forget it. I love my country despite it's mistakes and all your negative rhetoric will not change that.
Chris,
Your conduct in discussing this issue, and many others, is highly admirable. And for those of us who do love our country, despite our failings, appreciate your well spoken words.
You are worthy of much respect. Thank you.
Thanks I'm done with it though. I've had enough defending my country. The bad part is that you and I are the only ones who can see any positives about this land. I mean I am acutally arguing that this country is an inherently good nation with a person who lives here. Unbelievable.
"The bad part is that you and I are the only ones who can see any positives about this land.
Oh brother. Talk about a straw man. You and Tommy are the only ones who can see any positives about the U.S? Show me where someone here said that there weren't any positives.
Show me where any of the other posters here had the pride in their country to say ONE stinking thing positive about this country. You obviously can't you choose to make this about me. Your obsession with me is noted, I'm flattered, but nonetheless, yo sit idly by and agree wtih the incessant bashing of our nation. Have you no pride, maam.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you're saying that we cannot have a discussion about international politics criticizing current and past US foreign policy without also praising the US in some way?
I think you should really examine your motives on this issue. If I didn't know better it would appear that your trying question the posters patriotism, instead of actually address the issue.
Wrong again. Follow the flow of the discussion and you will undoubtedly see where you fail to understand my point. I have stated I don't disagree that our policies in Latn America contributed to deaths. My opposition t these guys and maybe you is that there is shared culpability and to attempt to show how military aid and political aid by us gives us all the blame and absolves others is ludicrous. I will continue to question ones patriotism when they can't even agree that this country does in fact do some good. I've tried to do that and the rebuttal is that I don't know about Latin America, or I misused the word generous, not one time has there been any poster other than Tommy who has said I love my country despite the bad things because overall the good outweighs the bad and we are in fact an inherently good nation. You don't agree?
When I read your statements it's pretty clear that your saying that C.C. has no pride in our country. That's a pretty sleazy attack IMO. The positive feelings I have about America are not relevant in a conversation that is based on criticism of US international relations unless of course I was trying to down play or excuse the criticism. What would be the point? Meddling in Latin America isn't really that bad because we do lots of other good things?
"Show me where any of the other posters here had the pride in their country to say ONE stinking thing positive about this country."
Logical fallacy #382 from you. Just because someone doesn't voice a positive feeling about this country that doesn't mean they don't have any.
"Your obsession with me is noted, I'm flattered, but nonetheless, yo sit idly by and agree wtih the incessant bashing of our nation. Have you no pride, maam. [sic]"
You're flattered because I posted one response to you in a 200+ post thread? Yeah, that's quite an obsession I've got.
You are utterly amazing. You obviously have no clue how the flow of this conversation prgressed between myself and FUNNYMAN and TOMJOAD. If you did, you would see how my comments to you are relevant, the other was just a simple sarcastc remark, you enjoy those dont you?
Please don't stop defending the US! If you stop posting here, the US is going to fall to the dark side tomorrow! So keep up your brilliant posts (in which you think 22% is greater than 88%) so I won't be in slavery tomorrow.
>>And for those of us who do love our country, despite our failings, appreciate your well spoken words.
What well-spoken words are those--the ones in which AChrispage didn't know that 22% is less than 78%? Or when he was calling those who disagreed with him unpatriotic? Or when he couldn't back up any of his statistics? Or when he refused to admit that even though the US overthrew democracies and supported dictatorships, it was not responsible?
Those brilliant words?
You are as stupid as I thought. You really are. I want you to read this slow so that it may seep into your little brain. The United States contribution to the U.N is 22% of the total contributions. We give more than any other country. No one country gives as much as we do. Therefore we are the single biggest contributor to the U.N. We give 2.4 billion per year to the U.N. another 1.4 billion to U.N. programs and agencies, which (pay attention now) makes the United States fund more of the U.N. and it's programs than all of the other 177 nations combined. In your fanatical research obsession please tell us who gives more? Your moronic rant only proves that you have no clue what you are talking about. Ignorance is above you sir, that is a fact. Who gives more? These facts simply destroy your pompous argument. Live with it.
ahhhh, THIS must be what tommy was talking about when he said
"Your conduct in discussing this issue, and many others, is highly admirable. And for those of us who do love our country, despite our failings, appreciate your well spoken words.You are worthy of much respect. Thank you. "
lollerskates. good stuff guys.
Funny how you can automatically cast a stone at me but refuse to see the sarcasitc tone set by the FUNNYMAN. But, hey he agrees with you right, that makes his insults acceptable. Your judgement of others is noted. Thanks for your omnipotent psychoanalysis.
oh please chris. no one has posted something specifically commending funny for the way he's posting (although when it comes to you i commend his remarkable restraint). Tommy says you should be commended, which is ridiculous.
Does that take away from the fact that FUNNYBOY set the tone of the discussion with his sophomoric sarcasm? You excus that but noone else and I believe the reason being is that he simply agrees with you. You have failed to show any consistency in your judgements of me. Perhaps when I agree with you on another thread I will obtain your praises, I can't wait.
Here is a little bit of responsibility drifting around Saint Ray-Gun, and his successor, the other Bungle:
CIA / Iran-Contra Involvement Implicated In Crack Epidemic In US Southwest
Now, I can already HEAR you complaining that Consortium is just a "left-wing tool". OK, but note that the IG of the CIA, and the CIA official publication of the investigations concur, despite the lack of coverage either in the '80s, or later, in the late '90s.
We supported and provided military aid to both El Salvador and Gutemalma dictatoriships. We overthrew the government of Guatemala in 1954 and installed a dictatoriship. This dictatorship brutally supressed the indigineous people and killed 100,000 people.
We did not overthrow the government of El Salvador, but we did again support a dictatorship that killed 100,000.
Nicaragua elected Ortega in the 80s (1984?). We did not support Ortega, so Reagan military supported a small group of anit-government rebels who killed 10,000 people. The small group had no popular support, so they would target things like health clinics and schools in rural parts of the country.
Indonesian annexed E. Timor against international law when E. Timor declared its independence. Indonesia had no military industry, so we provided it with things like attack helicopters. Militias, backed by the government, killed around 200,000 people. At any point, given the US's huge influence, it could have stopped the Indonesian government, since we had huge clout. Instead we gave them aid. finally, when it became a huge embarrassement to support Suhrato, we told him to stop, and he did--only decades too late.
I haven't even talked about Vietnam, Laos, Camboda, Chile, etc.
There is no reasoning wiht you on this. Military aid means we are just as responsible for deaths in you book, fine. Wouldn't it be more prudent to blame the deaths on the folks who did the killing? But if you wnt to look for more reasons to hate your country then fine. We can talk about U.S. policy to stop communism in the 50's and so one, but to assume that I don't know about it becasue I see it different is ridiculous. I see the good in my country as well as the bad. You won't change that. As a veteran, I'm proud of my country and love it. If you don't like that then fine. so be it. But to directly say that we are responsible for these deaths only serves to absolve the people who did the killing. Makes no sense.
>>There is no reasoning wiht you on this. Military aid means we are just as responsible for deaths in you book, fine.
Um, not just military aid. We overthrew the democracy in Guatemala, and then we provided huge amounts of support for the dictatorship, which never would have been able to last without the US's support. The same is true in all the other cases. That is like saying that the DDR (E. Germany) was solely resonsible for the oppression of its people, instead of laying the blame on the USSR.
Like I said, I haven't even mentioned Vietnam, a full-blown invasion that killed 3-4 million people.
Your opinion sir, You choose to blame America for these deaths and give no equal treatment to the governments we installed or the people who did the killing. You wish to absolve them and blame your country. Anyway, Vietnam is a sad story, but I can tell you from experience that most of the uneeded killing I saw there was done by VC and the NVA. Brutal people but again I guess we are the bad guys in our world.
We are all entitled to our opinions, but we shouldn't hide behind them, as you are doing. I never said the governments of Guatemala were not responsible. That is a strawman argument. But the US, who overthrew the government, deserves most of the blame.
Your rhetoric about Viet Nam is again devoid of facts. I have never heard disputed that the war cost the lives of 4-5 million people. There would have been no war if the United States had agreed to let Viet Nam hold elections according to the Geneva accords signed in 1954.
As far as brutality goes, the US and its forces were quite brutal, including Operation Phoenix, which tortured to death tens of thousands of Vietnamese.
You know nothing of Vietnam except what you read in and choose to accept as what happenned. Those people were going to fight no matter what and in the beginning the communists were not welcome. You have no clue.
>>You know nothing of Vietnam except what you read in and choose to accept as what happenned. Those people were going to fight no matter what and in the beginning the communists were not welcome. You have no clue.
No. You have no clue. As usual, you have no facts to back up your claim. In fact, the Geneva Accords said that the border between South and North Vietnam was only temporary, and that elections should be held in 1956. It also said that no more military aid should be brought into either zone.
The US supressed elections, precisely because it knew Ho Chi Minh would win. Truman himself admitted this frankly, that Minh would have won 90% of the vote. So instead we armed the unpopular South Vietnamese, a government so corrupt and so unpopular that it couldn't keep the same leader for more than 1/2 a year at a time. Ho Chi Minh was wildly popular, so I have no idea what you mean about the communists not being welcome.
hahah.... never mind funny... brick wall meet head?
Typical left wing thinking. You conveniently left out some things though ina transparent attempt to show us your intelligence. First of all it is ludicrous to say that the failure of the 1956 elections justified Hanoi in funding teh NLF and the Vietminh to armed insurrection. I'm not sure if you know this but Dwight Eisenhower was President at the time and in fact
Funny Pants,
Let me continue, Dwight Eisenhower was President at the time of the elections and in fact fully supported the idea of free supervised elections. Furthermore, President Diem was on record as saying "The clauses provided for the 1956 elections are extremely vague. But at one point they are clear in stipulating that elections are to be free. Everything will now depend how free elections are defined". Diem also said he would "wait to see whether the conditions of freedom would exist in the North at the time scheduled for the elections." Diem's point was that what good would an impartial counting of votes be if the voting was preceeded in North Vietnam by ruthless propoganda and the terrorism of a police state. It is also a FACT that the government in Hanoi while calling for free elections made NO EFFORT to respond to the call of the Soviet Union and Great Britain , as co-chairmen of the 1954 Geneva conference, for setting up the appropriate machinery for free elections. Furthermore, in 1956 the leaders of North Vietnam indicated themselves during the fall party congress and according to General Giap himself that the government was engaging in widespread terror, failure to respect faith and worship in the land reform program, and the use of TORTURE as NORMAL practice. These excesses were known to not only te South, but to the Untied States, China, the Soviet Union, and the North themselves.
Here is the part you fail to understand, it was these conditions in conjuction with the Domino Theory" which prohibited free elections. So you see it's not always the United States fault!!!!! Now then let's move on in debunking another of your left wing revisionist understandings of this war. There is a common myth that the Viet-cong movement began following the collapse of the elections because most of the South hated Diem and wanted to live under communist rule. That is false, sir. The men who opposed Diem were not Vietcong, they were called Caravellistes and out of the 16 million people in the South more were in support of the Carvelisstes than the Vietcong. The people were by and large very nationalistic and anti-communists. A good example of how this is true is to look at the NLF during that time. Not one of the NLF's leaders were from the South. The leaders were rather installed by the North to give the impression that the South on a whole supported the NLF and Vietcong. Just not true. Georges Chaffard, a French correspondent in 1965 lived with the Vietcong for a time and describes the Vietcongs strong desire and inability to find a leader from the South or more fighters as there was no popular urging to commit to communist insurgency. George Carver, an American journalist in the South who had over a decade of experience living n the South indicated that there was a strong emergence of nationalistic forces with a fundamental and overriding fact that the South was not in direct support of the Vietcong. Now, that leads me to tell you and TOMJOAD this, I was there in 1966 and again in 1968. In 1966 the populace on a whole and even in the country side was very cooperative and welcomed us. Those farmers had no desire to live under communist rule and in fact in the beginning hated the VC for their strong arm tactics in forcing people to help them. This attitude changed later as the war grew on and we encuntered more and more resistance from the locals who grew weary of the war. But the fact remains your opinion of Vietnam backed by "your facts" is still only an opinion as I have showed you in no uncertain terms that there was no "great uprising' of people in the south who wanted to live under communism. You simply choose to believe again that it was all our fault and we were this giant imperialistic evil force bent on killing people. It is obvious you did not objectively research Vietnam or the 1956 elections, or who was President in 1956 but rather chose to readily accept the accounts which portryaed the United States in a bad light. That says alot about you. Heck you even though Truman was President in 1954 and 1956. And you call me ignorant? Let me tell you this sonny boy, I was there and know how things were. Again your pompous, pseudo intellectualism shines like a beacon for all to see.
>>Which nation was vital in ending the oppressive rule of the Soviet Union over billions of people giving them hope? But no, Iran and it's leaders who oppress it's people to a rule of harsh radical theology, in which the liberty you enjoy is only a dream to it's people is somehow a moral lighthouse and the United States is somehow beneath that. I disagree with that (your) supposition, sir.
Talk about nonsense! Billions of people? There are only around 5 billion people in the world. So now the US is responsible for giving everyone in the world hope?
The United States is responsible for giving the world hope. We are the leaders of the free world. We saved South Korea, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Czechloslavakia, Norway, North Africa, etc, etc. We are the largest contributors of foreign aid. We have been vital in shaping democracies in Japan, Europe, parts of Asia,. Hae you ever heard of the Marshall Plan or the Truman Doctrine, NATO, SEATO, the World Bank, I mean the list goes on and on. Nothng is perfect but for you to sit and deny the good that we do as a nation and the role we have played in helping generations of people in the world have hope and liberty is appalling to me. YES, BILLIONS of lives have been saved through our efforts in WWII and the cold war. Do you deny that, or are you so wrapped up in your revolutionary America hating that you refuse to objectively see anything that does not adhere to your indoctrinated belief that the nation you live in is bad. You dream of a world utopia and fail to see reality so you rationalize that with focusing on the negatives of your country to make an argument that has no merit. I pity you, but I would take another bullet for my country and your right to protest it.
>>YES, BILLIONS of lives have been saved through our efforts in WWII and the cold war. Do you deny that, or are you so wrapped up in your revolutionary America hating that you refuse to objectively see anything that does not adhere to your indoctrinated belief that the nation you live in is bad.
Now you are simply ranting. I would like to see proof of that billions of people we have saved. I have quoted you exact figures and exact conflicts. You give me vague generalities.
You talk about my seeing things "objectively," but his words does not mean what you think it does. If you want to be objective, tell me how much the US contributes in foreign aid per GDP as opposed to other countries--you might be surprised to find it is very low.
It's very low ,but we are the most generous nation in the world. Like it or not. We have been the major contributor to the U.N for the past 60 years making up about 22% of the budget, we contribute more thatn the other 177 nations combined. As for your ridiculous indication that billions of lives have not been saved by our efforts, you want to rationalize that with asking for stats. How about good old fashioned common sense, How many people do you think would hve died if Hitler would have defeated Russia, obtained the oil fields in the middle east, took most of Africa and developed an atomic bomb? How about if we did not check the communist aggression in south korea or stop the Japanese for certain genocide from every country it invaded and raped for resources leaving dead behind. If you refuse to see this then you are beyond reason.
>>It's very low ,but we are the most generous nation in the world.
Oh gawd! Do you realize you contradicted yourself in the same sentence?
>>We have been the major contributor to the U.N for the past 60 years making up about 22% of the budget,
Big deal! That is a small part of foreign aid and 2.4 billion is a small part of our GDP.
>>How about good old fashioned common sense
So called common sense has no place in a real debate. That is just a way of saying "If you don't see things the way I do, then you are wrong." Common sense is the refuge of a person who doesn't have real argument.
The rest of your post is a rant, and a hypothetical one.
That is not a contradiction sir, It would only be a contradiction if in fact we were not the most generous nation in the world.
Wow! A perfect, circular argument! I never would have thought to see such foolishness.
Your facts don't back your conclusion, but you are not contradicting yourself because your conclusion is right! A perfect circular, nonsensical argument.
"sir, the earth is flat. See, this is a picture taken from space."
"But the picture shows the earth is round. You are contradicting yoruself."
"I am not contradicting myself because the earth is flat."
Do we give more in dollars than anyone else, yes or no? Are we the largest funding source for the U.N. yes or no? Now make up you mind sir, first you accuse me of contradiction then acircular argument. Just because the percentage of our GDP which goes to foreign aid is small does not discount the fact that we are the largest contributor in dollars. So please stop with your undergraduate philosophy lessons to me to justify yourself. There is no substitue for common sense.
First, you didn't say we gave the most in foreign aid. You said we were the most generous. That is clealy not the case.
Second, you have not shown that the US does give the most in foreign aid. (The UN is one tiny part of foreign aid.)
Last, you haven't denied that the US has overthrown democarices and supported dictarships, which have killed millions.
word parsing when you are proven worng, gotta love that.
"We have been the major contributor to the U.N for the past 60 years making up about 22% of the budget, we contribute more thatn the other 177 nations combined. "
Chris, if we were contributing "more than the other 177 nations combined," wouldn't our contribution be above 50%?
Think about dollar amounts. We contribute 2.4 billion. No other nation contrubutes that much. 2.4 billion is 22 % of the budget.
Good gawd you are a fool!
If we contribute 22%, that means the other nations have to contribute 78%. There is no way we contribte more than the other 177 nations combined.
I don't understand the point that is trying to made about the generosity of the US in the first place?
Are you trying to argue that it's ok to interfere with the sovereignty of other countries and the rational is that we give lots of money to the rest of the world?
follow the conversation MHK. The point is that as a nation is a good nation. We give more than anyone. How you came to your opinion about my reasoning I have no clue.
How did the convesation move from the US getting involved in the internal issues of other countries to an argument about the US being good because they give lots of money?
That's a good question. I think it started with a cute little interjection by FUNNYMAN during a conversation with TOMTOAD, In which I then pointed out to FUNNYGUY how the United States is in fact a major contributor to the U.N. and to foreign aid. Of course they poo pooed the notion and attacked me for using the word generous and no knowing about Latin America, or Vietnam, it was a regular two on one love fest. I know you and I have had our own not so subtle disagreements and I am tired of debating these same two jokers who fail to even objectively look at anything. It's as if they automatically look to assume that the United States engaged in the policies in Latin America for no other reason than bloodlust. Anyway, the issue began with me pointing to foreign aid as validation that this country does in fact to do some good things. Take that as you will, if you disagree fine.
not bloodlust. imperialism and national interest. blood shed was a bioproduct. but of course you would know that already....
So our motive for our foreign policy in Latin America was inherently evil from the start? Let us look at motive here for a bit. What do you think the imperialism and national interest you speak of was motivated by?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
rofl...
what do i think national interest was motivated by?
hahahahahaha.... you tell me chris
?!
No you are the fool you pompous idiot. The 2.4 billion is that 22% and the additonal 1.7 billion that we give to U.N. related agencies and programs makes the American taxpayer the largest contributor to the U.N. which in FACT exceeds the dollar amount given by all 177 nations. Now take your slimy insults and cram them in your @$$ because your brain is obviously letting other parts of your anatomy do your thinking.
It's not that hard FUNNYBOY. If you will read more carefully and objectively think, yo will se that we give 2.4 billion t the U.N. whcih is 22% of the funding the U.N> receives. Now, when you count the additional 1.7 BILLION we give to U.N> related agencies and programs that in fact makes us b the largest contributor which is more than the other 177 nations combined. You choose to call me a fool when it is obvious you can't understand simple things. I love it when you open minded far left folks stand in judgment of others.
Is the US the MOST generous country in the world as some would say?There are approximately 100,000 troops stationed in Europe (mainly in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Spain, Iceland, Belgium and Portugal). The cost per soldier is $180,000*. This equals appriximately 18,000,000,000 of military expenditures in Europe. This figure is from "The World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers" report published by the former U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament AgencyThe US gave $6,898,539,083.04 to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development which is $23.76 per person.Private donations equal $ 5 billion according to Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Philanthropy Association.18,000,000,000 (military expenditures in Europe)+ 5,000,000,000 (private donations)+ 6,898,539,083 (government international aid)= 28,898,539,083 (Total)28,898,539,083/290,342,554 = $75.77 per person which puts us at 8th.Remember that the total US military expenditure is for eight countries. Also, the figures qouted below for the other countries do not contain private donations. I only include private donations and military expenditures for the US.We add these totals into the table below which is from the CIA World Factbook which are government donations to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations to developing countries and multilateral organizations. ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows.Adding in private US donations and US military expenditures to the OECD contributions still puts us behind Europe. If we are going to have a debate let's start from a set of facts.1. Luxembourg $352.30 per person2. Norway $307.95 per person3. Denmark $302.72 per person4. Netherlands $216.71 per person5. Sweden $191.48 per person6. Switzerland $150.30 per person7. France $104.68 per personUnited States $75.77 per person8. United Kingdom $74.88 per person9. Belgium $74.25 per person10. Finland $73.01 per person11. Ireland $72.11 per person12. Japan $71.53 per person13. Germany $67.96 per person14. Austria $50.07 per person15. Australia $45.30 per person16. Canada $40.36 per person17. Spain $33.07 per person18. Portugal $26.82 per person19. New Zealand $25.23 per person21. Italy $17.24 per person22. Lesotho $0 per person23. Saudi Arabia $0 per person24. Korea, South $0 per person
Who gives the most MONEY, it sure as hell ain't Luxembourg. God!!!
lol. what about this maths is so hard for you to understand? so basically your argument is the US is entitled to lie about Iran, and is forgiven for its history of imperialism, because its generosity gives people hope. Yet that generosity is purely a function of the size of the US population, and as a result, the size of the US economy.
So, our conclusion, the US can do what it wants because the US is a big country.
bogus.
Everything you are offering here is rhetorical. Lives saved? Humanitarian efforts? Go check out statistics on percentage of GDP given as foreign aid by the United States compared to other countries. And I'm not refering to 1932, I'm talking about 1942. On what basis can you assert that the United States made these sacrifices on behalf of 'the world' when it only reacted AFTER it was attacked, AFTER Europe had been decimated, AFTER the Jews had arrived at the concentration camps? Of course, the involvement of the US was essential. My own country, New Zealand, was massively fearful of a Japanese invasion, and we fought alongside allied troops. Before 1942, I might add. My grandfather was an RAF pilot fighting in Italy. The US is not the only country that has made sacrifices. But it IS the only country that has decimated democracy in Latin America, backed dictators around the world, suppressed social movements, on such a massive scale.
To buy the BS about liberation and freedom and democracy is utterly naive.
Yes, exactly right.
I can tell we're on the same page on this one.
That's ridiculous, the war could not ahve been won without our involvement. Therefore we saved billions of people. Ask your grandfather or other veterans where they got their materials before we were attacked. You want; to minimize the role of the United States in WWII and you accuse me of using inane rhetoric. The fact remains that without us you would be saying Heil Hitler.
If you don't think that the United States has led the world in humanitarian efforts you are fooling yourself. If you point to the U.N. then ask yourself how much funding of the U.N. is directly accountable to the country. You want to deny that this nation has not contributed to world freedom and liberty more than any other, then fine, tell me which nation has led the way. I want to know, really, what other nation in the world has contributed more than us to overall humanitarian efforts and liberty? Is it New Zealand? Didn't think so unless giving sheep has helped people live in freedom.
Oh. My bad for giving you the benefit of the doubt in the 'intellectual credibility' department. You're still stuck in rhetoric and your argument is devoid of facts. Now you're just being insulting. If it wasn't for 'you' we'd be stuck saying heil Hitler? Its that kind of hubris which creates hatred for the United States in the first place.
In terms of New Zealand, you could probably take a leaf out of our book in terms of treatment of indigenous peoples, treatment of neighbouring countries (Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Niue, did you even know these countries existed? do you know where their economic aid comes from?) You could take a lead out of our book in terms of international law, environmental policy, the Kyoto protocol, our democratic and political institutions, our treatment of minorities, our social welfare policies, our health policy, our respect of sovereignty, and yes, our per capita aid budget, our individual genorisity. Do i need to go on? you nothing about my country, yet i know more about your country than you do. does that embarrass you at all?
Bigger isn't better Chris. Go fact check on which countries actually support and respect the UN. Which countries are actually meeting their funding commitments, which countries actually support the UN peace-keeping missions in Somalia, Cambodia, which countries lend their troops the cause, and which countries owe the UN money. Its embarrassing to me how little you understand.
You know more about our country than we do? Considering where you get your information you might want to amend that. One might think that your America trashing rhetoric is nothing more than sour grapes and thinly veiled jealousy.
Believe me, we hear it every day over here......you're hardly unique, so get over yourself.
lol where did this 'we' business come from? Chris is apparently unaware of US involvement in Latin America and Indonesia. I clearly DO know more about US imperialism than he does.
But yeah i'll er, get over myself. Lol.
and you didn't bother to address what I was saying. Again. Tommy why do you even bother coming here if you're not going to address the arguments but just stand on teh sidelines with a slingshot and take pot shots? you're of absolutely no value in this instance. Chris and I are talking here, and though we disagree, at least its interesting.
Ahh, not really. The fact that you use US imperialism together, just proves you don't. But keep watching those anti-American documentaries by anti-American documentarians and you'll feel better.
rofl
If i use the term "US Imperialism,' that's evidence I don't understand the United States? If you CAN'T see that US imperialism is a tangible reality, then I cant help you lol. I think we're done here. Just leave Chris and I to our discussion.
See ya.
Go back to your discussion, please, I just find those who do not live here, who are not American citizens, trashing America, and feebly attempting to tell us how bad we really are, as being rather humorous, that's all......now carry on.
I know plenty about Latin America, just because I don't hold our left wing revolutionary hate America posititon doesn't mean I am ignorant, I think we saw that from you on your belief that the Untied States did not need to drop the atomic bomb. And you have the audacity to call me ignorant, it's that type of arrogance that leads Americans to have some misgiving about ungrateful New Zealanders. You just don't like it that we saved your country, you don't even want to give credit where credit is due. Ask youself this, How many Americans died in the Pacific Theater so you could sit at the comfort of your computer and argue with me? There is some facts that you seem devoid of, rather a pity.
FYI - New Zealand isn't part of Latin America. I hate America because I asserted that the US didn't need to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?! Yet Truman's Chief of Staff asserted the same thing. And so did all the people I quoted below. Or did you not get up to that part yet?
Ask yourself this: How many New Zealanders died in WWII? And World War I? And what was that as a proportion of our population? Answer: More than the United States? Is this really a game of statistics?
LOL at ungrateful new zealanders.
Never said New Zealand is part of latin America. Proportional arguments are rather pitiful. Just face it sir, without us you would be living under the rule fo Nazi's or the Japanese. A simple thaks would be fine.
You say proportional arguments are 'rather pitiful.' Yet everything you've highlighted as being 'good' about the United States is simply a function of the size of the United States. The US might (it doesn't ) give the most gross aid, but proportionally it gives almost the least. I'm not sure why you can't see the relevance of that logic?
Is there another country who give over 13 billion dollars in foreign aid? Is there another country who gives 2.4 billion to the U.N.? 13 billion is 13 billion. You want to discount that because we have more money than most, well, just because YOU SAY we don't give enough doesn't make it true. BTW, why are you so generous with the taxpayers of the Untied States money?
"Proportional arguments are rather pitiful"
Walk me through your thinking on this one, Chris. It makes no sense to me at all.
My point Conchobar, was TOMJOAD seems to think that even though we give over 13 billion dollars in foreign aid it isn't enough because proportionally to our GDP and others GDP we give less. I disagree, our nation gives 13.4 billion dollars a year. No other nation gives that much. But it ain't enough for gool ol' TOMJOAD in New Zealand, he would like to give more of YOUR money away. It's rather simple, If I make 100,000 a year and TOMJOAD makes 10,000 a year and I give 15,000 to charity and he gives a 1500 he is somehow gives more. Wrong.
oh for petes sake...
where does it say i want to give more of your money away? you're grandstanding on this idea that the US is the greatest country in the world (which is asinine and irrelevant argument anyway) and when I point out the obvious, as other posters have here - that the US ISN'T the most generous nation - you can't even understand the maths that proves my point. Like i already said, your pathetic argument is based purely on the circumstantial size of the US population. There are an array of countries that give a higher proportional sum of foreign aid.
So you're wrong. And you're a little bit sad to be honest.
No sir, you are the sad one here. The fact of the matter is that based on the "facts' you would like to adhere to to validate our argument then Luxembourg is the most generous nation. Fine if you want to parse the generous term, the the fact remains The United States gives more money in foreign aid and to the U.N. than any other country. I don't you suppose to use some of your math and show me any country who gives more than 2.4 billion or 13.4 billion if foreign aid? didn't think so, you pitiful jerk.
>>I know plenty about Latin America,
You haven't shown this at all. You keep offering rhetoric instead of facts.
What facts do you want? I have told you that you are not even trying to link these deaths to our involvement but are blaming us for them. I disagree and say that the people who did the brutal killing were more responsible, what facts do you want to validate that? Your opinion is based on the facts you posted as is mine. Waht do you want?
Oh please! Stop pretending you know the first thing about Latin America.
I have already posted that the US overthrew two governments and backed dictatorships, and that a human rights report, endorsed by the US in the 90s, put the blame for 100,000 deaths on the US.
O.K. buddy, which human rights report would that be. I'll bet they love America as much as you. As for the Guatemala thing, I am well aware of the coup in the 50's under Eisenhower, and Carlos Castillo Armas. You should really get over yourself. We don't agree. I like my country and you don't. Move on.
It was a UN report. I posted some of the text below.
As far as loving your country, I see you have resorted to patiroism to hide your lack of facts and argumentation. Saying I don't love my country (whatever that phrase even means) has nothing to do with a sound argument.
***
Clinton also visited Guatemala in the immediate aftermath of the release of a United Nations-sponsored report exposing the genocidal state terrorism in that country and directly indicting Washington for its role in supporting, financing and advising the Guatemalan military.
Among the documents released by the US government (although the investigators specified that the US military provided no useful information whatsoever) were formerly secret documents making it clear that successive administrations were kept well informed of the murderous campaign waged by a series of Guatemalan dictatorships against their own people, and that they continued to provide military hardware and assistance for precisely that purpose.
These documents dealt not only with the Reagan administration's deliberate cover-up for the extermination of entire Mayan populations in order to continue providing military aid, but indicated that the Clinton administration has itself continued the same essential policy of silence on repression in Guatemala.
One recently declassified secret report from the Defense Department from November 1992 informed the Clinton administration that ex-guerrillas from the National Revolutionary Union of Guatemala (URNG) were being forcibly recruited into the Guatemalan army. "Those who refuse to join are executed and buried in unmarked graves," the report stated. Another report informed the administration that, as in the days of military dictatorship, the Guatemalan army "does not take prisoners of war." Those captured, it continued, were "interrogated and, in the majority of cases, killed and burned."
Chris, you know that many of the most repressive and murderous military units in Latin America in the 80's were trained in "counter-insurgency" at Ft. Bragg. Many of the techniques they learned they used as death squads against unarmed peasants, intellectuals, and union organizers. Would you say we're totally blameless?
I have never indicated that we are totally blameless. I realize that our policy decisions contribute to things like FUNNYMAN talks about. It's as if he is trying to prove to me these things happenned. That is not the argument, the argument is that despite these things we are a good nation, we do good things, and the reality is that giving arms to these people and training them is only part of the equation. A smaller part in my opinion than the actual killing.
You know more about my country than I do. You sir, are a pompous @##. What is suprising to me is that only two of us here have the gall to stand up and defend America in this discussion as our nation is berated by a New Zealander. why do you think the Unites States is the single most generous benefactor to the United nations? why do you think we give around 2.4 billion per year or around 25% of the total U.N. operating budget to the U.N.? Did you know, sir, in all you omnipotent wisdom that you accuse me of lacking that the United States taxpayer funds more of the United nations than the resto fo the 177 nations combined. So now, sir, before you shoot off at the mouth, or keyboard in this instance, you should get your facts straight. Congressional research reports will verify this. It is you who have no clue. I dont' expect an apology for your ignorance.
>>You know more about my country than I do. You sir, are a pompous @##.
Someone is losing his temper!
>>What is suprising to me is that only two of us here have the gall to stand up and defend America
You aren't defending America. You are repeating arrant nationalistic nonsense, which you can't back up.
>>why do you think the Unites States is the single most generous benefactor to the United nations?
Wow. I'm so impressed. I asked you earlier if you could tell how much the United States gives in foreign aid per GDP. If you look, you will find we give a very low amount. The UN budget is a small amount compared to our GDP.
Never was responding to you sir, The facts I gave above remain. As a percentage of GDP is no argument unless you are arguing that we should give more. Given that we fund around 22-26 % of the U.N. and are the world's most generous humanitarian your argument has no merit. By the way I am not losing my temper, I find it rather disgusting when someone from a foreign country sits around and berates the nation I fought for. It is pompous behavior. I'll assume you would agree.
>>Given that we fund around 22-26 % of the U.N. and are the world's most generous humanitarian your argument has no merit.
Well, but yes my argument does have merit. 2.4 billion is an extremely small amount. Other countries give much more per GDP, so the United States is far from generous.
Check out:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
The US ranks 22nd in the world in foreign aid in terms of GDP. It gives only 1/5th of what Sweden gives in terms of GDP.
No, don't assume I agree with you about TomJoad. TomJoad doesn't hate me, though I'm an American. He hates the brutal foreign policy of the US.
That is your opinion, and your attempt to rationalize you being wrong about the United States being the most generous nation because on proportion we don't give as much based on GDP is laughable. If you make thrity thousand dollars a year and I make one hundred thousands dollars a year and I give ten thousand to charity and you give four thousand dollars I still gave more. Your argument has merit on the surface but the fact remains that unless you are saying we don't give enough, the proportional argument is moot.
Sorry, but you haven't even shown that the US gives the most in foreign aid to begin with. You have shown that the US gives the most to the UN--that is one tiny part of foreign aid!
And yes, GDP is the way you measure foreign aid. You said the US is generous. The GDP proves you are wrong.
Cheers funny. I really don't mean to put chris on the back foot and get him all defensive, but i think hes talking in hypotheticals and we're working in facts. Its a cross purpose argument - a discussion of US foreign policy is not a reflection of my feelings towards the United States - the country, as you well know. I have a US visa. I love California. But all that is a irrelevant. I hate US imperialism, like you do - even though Tommy doesn't even realise it exists. I wonder how else you describe the influence successive governments have tried to exhert, illegally, in LAtin America, at the cost of literally hundreds of thousands of lives?
You are looking at this wrong. It is not a function of our country it is a function of POWER. The actions they are talking about are undeniable. We have done a lot of good. Our people demand it, we are a good people, but each time we get a new administration the rules change. We have also overthrown democracies in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Brazil and the Dominican Republic (the last taking an actual invasion to stop their people from reinstalling freely elected Juan Bosch back in power) and installed dictatorships. That is a historical FACT. This isnt about who is morally superior. Nor a freer democracy. It is about how out of control is Bush can he be trusted? We dont HAVE to trust Iran to work diplomacy with them we can demand verification for whatever we agree on. Making nuclear weapons cannot be hidden remember we busted N Korea when they tried. With our history we cannot demand our motives are beyond reproach. We need to be above board especially after Iraq we cannot demand people just trust us. Either we cough up the evidene or we accept that we dont have it. We have a lot more to gain through diplomacy and a lot less to lose.
I have not denied that these things happenned. I know they did, All I have said is that it is quite a reach to autmotacially blame America when military aid is given and deaths occur or backing of a coup in the 50's and subsequent government action coused alot of deaths it is not primarily our fault. I will not budge on that.
From my quote above:
Among the documents released by the US government (although the investigators specified that the US military provided no useful information whatsoever) were formerly secret documents making it clear that successive administrations were kept well informed of the murderous campaign waged by a series of Guatemalan dictatorships against their own people, and that they continued to provide military hardware and assistance for precisely that purpose.
If you want to say the US is not responsible, then lets say that the USSR was not responsible for the atrocitites in any of its satrelite states.
You arent facing the reality of the issue. We not only KNEW that it was the governments slaughtering their people in Guatemala and El Salvador. Reagan gave Rios Montt a MEDAL in Washington AFTER he slaughtered tens of thousands in Guatemala in less than two years. I agree we dont get ALL the blame we share it with those bloody military dictatorships but we DO have culpability. The other two posters were absolutly right that El Salvador of instance would NOT have survived without our high level of military aid. The people of that country would have overthrown their brutal dictatorship within months, there is no real question about that. If our only argument is the amount of culpability it is a trivial one. I am mostly concerned we do not do this AGAIN. We really need to stop THAT kind of thing and approaching Iran diplomatically, not closing off all diplomatic avenues, using the military option as an obvious LAST resort is a step along that path.
I don't disagree SOLON. I have never denied that we should share responsibility for these actions. I will not take a issue in which their is shared culpability and announce that we are evil and a bad nation. I won't disagree on Iran, but I will say that a nuclear Iran is a real threat. TOMJOAD doesn't think so and FUNNYMAN thries to rationalize tht we should do nothing because we contributed to killings in Latin America. It makes no sense, and I won't blame my country first.
Show me where i said a nuclear Iran isn't a threat. What i said was, your President is lying about the threat posed by Iran, and this situation is comparable to the lies of past administrations operating in latin america, the caribbean, South East Asia, and funnily enough, the middle east. Get a grip.
You essentially said using Chomsky's logic that it really doesn't matter if Iran has the weapons because Isreal could wipe them out if they truied to use them. Pretty simple there mate.
No, it doesnt imply that it DOESNT MATTER. It simply demonstrates there is no true incentive for Iran to get nuclear weaponry - they could never use them.
*pat pat*
You should really read the postings later in this thread. You are contradicting yourself. But I guess you would already know that and hope noone else does.
Hi sir, I was compelled to add my two cents into the fray.
I want to start thsi off by saying that I love my country. I want to oneday occupy office, and serve the people of this country and of the world. I believe that America has done a lot of good around the world, but I also believe we could do a lot more. We are the only country with the money and resources to bring about global prosperity and I just don't feel we have done enough to accomplish that just yet. But we can. Part of loving your country I feel is accepting that your country has done bad things in the past. WE have participated in imperalism. We have overthrown governments that didnt support our interests. WE have influenced the deaths of many by our failed or arrogant foreign policies. I blame this partly on corporate greed. I blame this partly on Americans being primarily isolated from the rest of the world geographically and not having the global experiences required of effective foreign policy design. But I also blame it on what is to be expected of a country of our size, influence, and power. When a country with our power does something good, its really good. When a country of our power does something bad, it can be incrediably devestating to world peace.
Instead of ignoring what we have done wrong (such as our imperalistic past), lets learn from it and evolve to be a better nation. Loving your nation means you want to improve it, you want it to be better and you want to be able to say that your country has done something for the world after wwII .
Now for the less lofty statements. I found it quite scary and impossible to understand your argument that America is not to blame at all for the deaths that result from funding militia groups. Now lets put that in perspective. You are saying that a country is not to blame for funding an opposition militia whose purpose is to overthrowa government and institute its own rule. You are saying a country is to blame from the deaths which result from these opposition militas using US training and weapons to attack schools, hospitals, government leaders, etc in order to push forth an agenda or initiate a political change.
This my friend is called funding terrorism. This my friend is exactly what you have blamed Iran of. And we have founded many such groups all around the world. WE even fund such a terrorist group in Iran. This is why iran considers us a state sponsor of terror
The point here my friend is consitency in the judgements of your country and objective thinking so you are not blinded by your own partisanship. I applaud you for your ambition and at least you can agree we are a good nation. I have never denied that in Nicarauga and Guetamala atrocites occurred by governments backed by the United States. Ask yourself this though, have you ever took the time to even try to find out if the perhaps the Sandinistas or the communist in Guatemala were without sin. It's a two way street and to only see this issue in the light that it's Amnerica's fault only sells yourself short on aquiring knowledge. How many people do you suppose the Sandinistas would have killed, imprisoned and tortured if left to their own devices/ What you won't hera from TOMJOAD and FUNNYDUDE is an objective look at the atrocities committed by these guys or other communists for that matter. Perhaps you should ask them how many people Mao killed or Stalin. Hypothetically, suppose we supported resistance there which resulted in deaths, how do you think they would portray our policy in those circumstances? I'll give you a hint, it would certaintly no focus on the millions Mao killed but there issue would be with the imperialistic intervention and subsequent deaths of innocent communists. In short what you never hear from these guys is another side of the story, they absolve all others to rationalize their belief that we are a bad nation on a whole. If you choose that route, then more power to you. You will only be selling yourself short. I encourage you to read the "Black Book of Communism" and research the Sandistas, at least you will be informed and know that our country is not some evil entity who revels in mass murder as FUNNYBOY TOMTOAD would have you believe.
Ok well you obviously don't know anything about Nicaragua.
and chris, THIS ISNT A POST ABOUT COMMUNISM OR CHINA IN 1948 ITS A POST ABOUT THE US TODAY AND THE ONLY RELEVANT CONTEXT IS US HISTORY..... fyi.
You are one pompous individual. Since when are you the dictator on what is and what is not relevant. Should we all defer to you from now on so you can decide in all your omniopotent wisdom what is right and wrong, what is relevant and what is not? You really need to get over yourself.
I notice how you cherry pick your responses. For example earlier in the thread you make an assinine comment about head and brick wall following FUNNYBOY'S revisionist anti-American synopsis of our involvement in Vietnam. When I systematically chewed up that argument and proved that bit of propoganda wrong there was silence from you which on the forefront I thought was astounding because I didn't expect someone with a type A personality such as yourself to be able to acknowledge your wrong. But then I thought that "this is what this guy does, he cherry picks his arguments and responses only in places in which he feels he has leverage. He likes to look smarter than what he really is. He feels impotent and has to engage others the way he does to give himself the credibility he probably lacks elsewhere in his life." That' rather sad TOMJOAD. I must show you more compassion, I didn't realize you had emotional shortcomings. It's o.k. TOMJOAD, understand your feelings of inadequacy, as James Taylor said "you've got a friend."
Now then, are trying to imply that the Sandista's were a good and noble organization? Are you implying that when the United States first intervened in 1909 in Nicaruaga it was not a noble cause following the massacre of 500 people including two Americans by revolutionaries who were not good people in the first place? Are you trying to say anything at all? Or are you just hoping that someone does not have a differing opinion than you which is supported by objectivity? My point stands on the use of Mao and Stalin. It was utilized to show the POSTER whom I was responding how you and FUNNYBOY have been disingenuous with your subjective viewpooints. Again, what was the primary motive behind the U.S. "imperialism"? Was the motive inherently evil or inherently good? I got a feeling what your answer will be and it will only prove my earlier points that you are a senseless ideologue who ascribes to viewpoints which blames America first. You are so transparent it is pitiful.
its not subjective to ommit discussion of Mao Zedong in a discussion of US imperialism. you only need to bring it up if you're defending US imperialism. which im not going to do.
"... the war could not ahve been won without our involvement. Therefore we saved billions of people."
The war couldn't have been won if the Brits hadn't withstood the Blitz. Therefore the Brits saved billions of people?
The wer couldn't have been won if the Russians hadn't destroyed Hitler's Eastern army. Therefore the Russians saved billions of people?
It was the Allies who won the war. No one of them could have done it alone, and it could not have been done if any one of them had not held up their end. Enough of the jingoism.
You should really study history. Russia was done for if not for the introduction of a second front in Europe led by the overhwelming majority of AMERICAN FORCES. Britain was done for if not for our supply of materials to make the planes which won the battle of Britain. I am not attempting to take away form the bravery of those who fought Hitler and Hirohito, but the fact remains that the United States entry into the war was the single most defining moment in changing the momentum of Nazi Germany. Hitler was knocking on the door in Moscow, and vital resources had to be moved from Russia to France by the Germans. It's simple really, it's not jingoisms we put over a milliojn men under arms, lost over 200,000 and another quarter of a million wounded, fought a war on two fronts. This could not have been done if not for our industrial capacity which was unmatched. For you to indicate that we were merely a part of the victory is really unbelievable. The world was ready to fall to the Germans and Japan until our entry. It was the British who fought along side of us, not us helping the British. I am astounded that you can't take pride in this fact.
"Which nation was vital in ending the oppressive rule of the Soviet Union over billions of people giving them hope?"
Not America. Communism in the Soviet Union collapsed on itself through unregulated government agencies and a flawed doctrine.
O.K. another America hater joining th discussion and can't even give credit where credit is due. We spent them into oblivion. That is incontravertable.
You make two logical fallacies here. First, you claim that those who don't agree with you are American haters. That is an emotional argument, a type of name calling. It has nothing to do with a good argument.
Second, you state that something is "incontravertable." That is a tuatology, a way to simply state an opinion as if it were a fact.
Questioning patriotism or accusing others of hating America is not a substitute for an argument. I would say that your bordering on RNC/Karl Rove style debate tactics.
You do understand the difference between a specific Administration and America right? The difference between the ideals of America and the actions taken by our Government? I think your un-questioning patriotism does more damage to America then any criticism could ever hope to achieve. While you're busy waiving the flag and calling into question the motives of others, you're not addressing valid concerns about our government officials. Our government is not above reproach.
An it colllapsed peacefully because it had a leader who had the intellectual and moral capacity to see through party and nationalist ideology and the courage and integrity to act on what he saw. Mikhael Gorgachev doesn't get nearly the respect he deserves.
Who is more likely to start the next war? I don't know, but I do know that if you allow nuclear weapons in a nation which is defined as a theolgical regime with radical leaders who support terrorism that is far more dangerous to world stability than our god awful imperialistic nation.
The US is most likely to start the next war, not Iran. The US just waged a war in Iraq in 2002, and the current administration is pushing for another war with Iran.
The Iraq war has resulted in over 100,000 needless deaths. Has Iran waged a war in the last 10 years that has done the same?
So who is saying we accept that. In fact military adventurism is likely to bring that very thing about. We can DEAL with Iran. The people who are REALLY in charge are not extremists. Amadinejad has no power. Rafsanjani is reasonable. If we attack them if we start a war with them already unstable Pakistan is liable to be thrown into chaos and it is entirely possible that an extremist regime will come to power and they ALREADY have nuclear weapons.
Well I appreciate your respectful tone. But I can't appreciate your argument. Its a bit irrelevant, but your point about the Swastika is indicative. Yes, in the pacific rim, many people are grateful of US involvement in the second world war. But that doesn't mean we don't also understand the impetus for involvement, and for example, the unnecessary bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 that cost 100's of thousands of lives.
I take issue with your assertion taht suggesting claims about the threat posed by the US in comparison to Iran suggest a lack of understanding. What was the last country Iran invaded? Look at the devastation in latin america. look at the devastation in Cambodia, Vietnam.
The whole crux of this argument is this; It's not an issue of 'justifying bad behaviour.' Two wrongs don't make a right, you're totally correct. But understanding the cause of the bad behaviour is necessary to understanding and preventing it. When you look at the history of Iran, you understand why US rhetoric in 2007 is so dangerous. Your president is lying to justify his aggressive rhetoric pointing to war. you should be furious, in the context of what that has meant for people all over the world in the past. Gulf on Tonkin, anyone?
That is easy for you to say, your nation would not be the one sacrificing a couple of hundred thousand lives to invade Japan, not to mention the likely MILLIONS of Japanese civilians killed in a feverish defense of their emperor and nation. The necessity of the two atomic bombs is clear. War is hell and to sacrifice two hundred to save millions is sad, but a reality. I doubt that if you ask anyone of the brave men who island hopped if the two atomic bombs were unecessary you'll get a good laugh out of them. If you tell them you may get a good cussing.
You can continually point to foreign endeavors like Vietnam to support your argument that America is a bad nation. I'll continue to disagree as the good outweighs the bad in every instance, in my opinion. Achieving perfection is a worthy endeavor for a nation, but alas, it is impossible and to conveniently forget the good to focus on the bad makes your argument disingenious, with all due respect. We are dealing with the here and now, reality if you will. You have no qualms about Iran possesing nuclear weapons, I find that idea very scary considering their radical leadership, calls for our destruction, and sponsoring of terrorism. It's that simple. I do respect your opinion though, you make thoughtful arguments which lack the personal "touches" that occur here frequently, ( of which I am guilty of at times), I commend you for that.
No worries :P
but you need to re-check your ideas about the use of the nuclear bomb. Truman's top generals advised him there was 'no military need' to use the nuclear bomb. In fact, the Japanese were attempting to surrender all summer. The reason the US dropped the bombs on those dates was because I believe august 10th was the date set for Japan to surrender to 'the allies,' which meant Russia also. Its not a contended fact, as far as I know. But point me in an opposite direction if you can.
I'm not saying the US isn't an important nation of values. but in the context of lying about Iran, there are some historical realities that desperately need to be considered, because it's very very obvious what is happening here, and if you're concerned about the lives of your own military personnel, not to mention Iranian citizens etc etc (and you clearly are) then we'll both need to look past nationalistic rhetoric about the nature of the United States. Its not relevant, imo.
TomJoad posted:
"In fact, the Japanese were attempting to surrender all summer. The reason the US dropped the bombs on those dates was because I believe august 10th was the date set for Japan to surrender to 'the allies,' which meant Russia also. Its not a contended fact, as far as I know. But point me in an opposite direction if you can."
_________________________________
Point of clarification. Japan never attempted to surrender to the U.S. all summer as you assert. They made overtures to the Soviet Union, but never with emissaries of the US Gov. We know this because we had cracked the codes by then and intercepted communicates between Japanese agents and Japan.
They also made stipulations to the SU, that would keep the emperor from standing trial for war crimes and were attempting to negotiate a "negotiated peace", not unconditional surrender as the allies had asked.
Ultimately it came down to the allies meeting in Potsdam were they warned the Japanese that they would suffer "ultimate destruction" if they did not surrender. Japan refused the Potsdam Declaration on July 25, 1945.
You are correct that there were factions in the Japanese hierarchy that proposed a surrender. That message fell on deaf ears as the military rejected it outright. When the emperor decided to address the Japanese people, there was a faction that tried to stage a coup de tat, so surrender was far from an established mindset at that hour.
I didnt assert that they were trying to surrender to the US. But i can see you know more about this than I do.
Check out the quotes below, becuase thats how i was responding to the arugments. Its over the necessity of using the atomic bomb.
according to this, the u.s. never made a public demand that the emperor abdicate, but in fact was discussing in private that he could stay in a ceremonial role. which is ultimately what happened. and this says that the imperial council voted 3-3 on the issue of surrender, even after nagasaki. the emperor broke the tie.
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
Just to drive the point home...
Japan had no plans to surrender. There were factions that suggested it, but only two events brought it squarely to the forefront.
Hiroshima. The leadership still waited.
Nagasaki. Even then it took three more days before they surrendered.
Do you REALLY believe that after two A-bombs they still hesitated? Do you not also believe that if they hadn't been dropped, the invasion would have to go forward?
If you want to learn about the Japanese mindset during the war here are three books to get you started:
At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor....Gordon W. Prange
Combined Fleet Decoded: The Secret History of American Intelligence and the Japanese Navy in WWII...John Prados
Flags of Our Fathers...James Bradely
All three of these books detail in depth the Japanese soldiers and sailors mentality along with what was happening on the home front.
As much as the anti war crowd would love to rewrite the history on this, those bombs saved MILLIONS of lives, both Japanese and American and yes even possibly a Kiwi or two.
Not to mention that the US tried to overthrow the democractically elected government of Nicaraugua in the 80s, and sponsored dicatorships in El Salvador in and Guatamala, all of which resulted in over 100,000 civilians killed, according to a human rights report. And not to mention that the US backed Indonenisia's genocide of the people of E. Timor, which resulted in 200,000 killed in a country of 600,000.
By the way, to the right wing reactionary who made the argument that we on the left think America is to blame for all the world's problems, no we, have never made that statement, so please stop with your strawman argument.
Wow, your two paragraphs don't exactly jive. Your first ascribes heineous and horrible motives to some of America's foreign policy actions, while your second paragraph tries to mop it up?.......weird.
Yea, okay question mark Tommy. Maybe you should try reading more carefully.
Dont fret, funny. I understand perfectly what you're saying. Tommy is being disingenuous. Theres a difference between being aware of the crimes of your recent administrations, and blaming the US for all the world's problems. essentially, an awareness of reality makes you unpatriotic in the world of these kooky hawks.
There's a difference in being fully aware that your country has made mistakes and regrets every single life lost, by any country, in any conflict........than taking some sick pleasure in ensuring maximum lives are lost in every conflict.
What are you even possibly talking about Tommy? On what basis can you assert your country regrets every single life lost? Thats a total insult to the people of, oh I don't know, Nicaragua, for one. Just one example that proves your point totally invalid. I think the point is that while you may regret the lives lost (despite clearly failing to understand exactly why they have been lost) your adminstration sure as hell doesn't care about the lives lost - thus the false rhetoric about Iran, and the lies about Iraq. US 'national interest' trumps lives lost, in a democracy or dictatorship or theocracy or whatever country.
I can separate you from the crimes of your political representatives. You need to do the same, and the argument loses the personal edge and becomes clear.
regrets every life lost? come on. please. nobody's laughing anymore.
Fine, if you aren't comfortable with that verbage, how about the US does not delight in lives lost during foreign conflicts, unlike some others, who gleefully do.
I take that as you accepting your point was totally flawed. Who are these 'others?' you're talking about. And you haven't addressed my response to your assertion the United States 'regrets every life lost' when that is so clearly untrue.
I suggest John Pilger's recent documentary, that you can find on quicksilverscreen, as a good starting point for educating yourself.
One fact I do know about Pilger is he a strong supporter of Hugo Chavez. If you want to hang your hat with him, be my guest. I have no interest in cozying up with American haters such as those two, sorry.
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahah... oh bruv....
Seriously dude, you're sounding more and more like George Bush everyday. "American haters?" get a grip. With that close minded, inaccurate, indoctrinated attitude, its not wonder you dont understand this issue.
Sorry, I don't go around trashing the United States with anti-American wackos who cozy up to even wackier foreign leaders who despise the country in which I live. Call me crazy.......
But if this gives you greater understanding of the "issues", by all means continue.
Yes question mark Tommy, keep chaneling Archie Bunker. You realize your argument is an ad hominem attack, don't you?
I think most respected news organisation would be surprised to hear John Pilger referred to as 'an anti-American wacko.'
"There's a difference in being fully aware that your country has made mistakes and regrets every single life lost, by any country, in any conflict........than taking some sick pleasure in ensuring maximum lives are lost in every conflict."
Certainly you can't be referring to the United States of America when you say the country "regrets every single life lost." If the country (government and citizenry alike) truly felt sincere regret, we wouldn't be quite so cavalier about going into war ("Bring it On"), nor our politicians and media so dismissive of war dissent ("--Love it or Leave it").
Maybe you live in Canada?
Funny,
Hey, got a link that the U.S. backed the genocide of 200,000 in E. Timor? That has slipped under my radar.
Type 'US backed General Suharto' into any search engine, and take your pick.
Are you KIDDING ME? Suharto used US A-10 bronco planes, they were firing m-16s they were eating US MREs. It was TOTALLY US supported.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB174/index.htm
If the other items suggested to you are not your cup of tea, I also recommend watching the video "Manufacturing Consent," with interviews with Noam Chomsky.
Careful with that one, though. I was bawling in front of the television when watching it.
Again with the simplistic rightwing thinking. A country can only be one thing, either completely good or completely evil. No possibility of a mixed bag. I guess it make sense if you are an idiot.
funny, all the problems you have mentioned here seem to be the fault of the nation in which you live. Is there anything that this country has done right in your mind?
Are you able to contemplate mistakes you've made in your life without reaching the conclusion that everything you do is wrong?
Think about that for a minute, and then read what you just wrote again. It should be illuminating.
That is a silly false dichotomy. Coutries are like people. They arent one thing. They arent either pure evil or without blemish. This is an old rightwing meme you ought to be past by now. Criticism of THINGS DONE, by specific administrations even several of them is NOT a criticism of WHO WE ARE. When your kid does something bad and you have to punish him does that mean you think he is evil and without any redeeming qualities? Its silly
It is not silly, my point is that there has not been one positive statment about this nation during this entire thread. Instead all we get is example after example of policy decision in which one side of a conflict is supported and the resulting deaths automatically become our fault. At least you will say tht there is shared culpability. It seems that FUNNY MAN and TOMNJOAD want to use these example to further valdify their argument that we are a inherently bad nation. Do you agree?
Mom, Apple Pie, the American Way.
There. Now we can get back to the discussion, since Chris has been reminded of the lovely things in America.
From now on, those of us who are interested in mature discussions on things like foreign policy and governmental responsibility are reminded to wave a flag every ten posts or so - no matter how off-topic it may be - just to appease the Jingoists.
lollerskates!! BLR - When ever I read Noam Chomsky works, or criticise Fox News, or write on this website, I'm waving my American flag with one hand, because it retains my sense of ballance, you know?
Thanks for your wonderful contribution to the serious discussion,... I'm sorry you haven't really contributed anything, you are just talking out of your arse, as usual.
Why wouldnt they want them for defense? Are OURS for defense? Did we or did we NOT invade a country on their border on false pretenses? NO Iran does NOT have the second most proven oil reserves in the world that would be Canada behind Saudi Arabia. Iran does have a real reason for peaceful nuclear energy. That is they USE a lot of their own oil which will run out within about 20 years at the present rate of depletion. Freeing up more for export only makes economic sense. Here is the thing. I dont trust Iran and we NEEDNT trust Iran. However we already blew the whole trust thing in Iraq. There is a diplomatic solution in Iran, not to mention an attack on Iran would have likely consequences that make Iraq look like a garden party. Iran is our natural ally in the region, they are not arabs and have a natural distrust for most of their neighbors, racial politics is HUGE in the middle east. Also we are telling them THEY cannot develop nuclear weapons at the same time WE are saying we are going to build a whole new generationg of more USABLE nuclear weapons. Where is the moral consistancy in THAT? Ahmadinejad is a worry. He however has no real power in their system and the man who DOES, Rafsanjani is a moderate. There is every reason to believe this can be solved with diplomacy, if it cant the military option is ALWAYS available. However we dont have the evidence that Iran is doing anything more than our intelligence agency says they are. Remember during Iraq there was ALWAYS conflicting intelligence, the State Dept leaking intel that differed from the CIA that isnt the case here. Also when the CIA is giving information agreeing with an administration, ANY administration you can suspect there was pressure put on them but when they come right out and disagree that has more credibility since it takes political courage.
"Why wouldn't they want them for defense?"
"I dont trust Iran and we NEEDNT trust Iran"
You just answered your own question. One word - Trust.
We dont HAVE to trust them. That doesnt mean we need to search for reasons to start a war with them. ANY diplomatic solution we reach would necessarily include verification. Trust is not NECESSARY.
The point is you put up all these reasons why their weapons programs may be completely on the up and up - and then the next breath you say you don't trust them........well, HELLO, that is the point, isn't it?
NO IT ISNT. Because they DO have reasons for nuclear energy and there is NO NECESSITY FOR TRUST. Any dimplomatic avenue would involve verification. So NO trust isnt even part of the picture.
Solon, I love ya more than my luggage, but thank God you're not in charge of our national security......whew.
Solon clearly states that nothing from Iran should be taken on trust and that verification would be required from any agreement reached with them.
I would hope that would be exactly what we need to preserve our national security.
Any rational person would rather have ME in charge than YOU.
wow - that's really patronising Tommy. Why am I not surprised?
I absolutely don't care to. I'm addressing what you're saying here and now. There is no issue of 'two sides 'playing' ' this issue. The only issue should be the lies of the Bush Administration in attempting to perpetuate a false conflict with I assume hegemonic ambitions.
And you are under no obligation to do so, just don't attribute a false opinion to me when you're clueless as to what it is.
I just get the impression that sometimes the Bush haters support Iran only because they hate Bush. Maybe I am wrong?
No, I don't believe you are wrong at all.
Who is "supporting" Iran? There is a big difference between supporting a country and simply not wanting to bomb them.
I do not support Iran. But I also do not think that bombing Iran will accomplish anything for our own (U.S.) security.
What exactly do you mean by "support Iran"? Is someone who doesn't want to bomb them into oblivion supporting them?
You're wrong, yes.
Agreed on the cherry-picking issue. Dangerous no matter who does it. Seymour Hersh, who's reporting has been more credible than any given administration's statements over the past 30 some years, broke this story months ago. He said there was an NIE that undercut Administration claims, and that Cheney had "his foot on it's neck," trying to get it tilted his way, just as he did in the leadin to Iraq.
The difference this time is that the agencies pushed back, insisting on giving their best estimates, with frank assessments of their confidence in these estimates, rather than giving a politically influenced NIE which would give the Administration cover for what it wanted to do. Remember the neocon mantra in 2002, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad; real men want to go to Tehran."
The Agency also says it's improved its intelligence gathering and its methods of analysis. Possibly. It's good to be skeptical. Tim Weiner has a new, highly unsettling book out on the Agency, entitled Legacy of Ashes. The title refers to a statement by Eisenhower to the effect that, in passing the CIA on to Kennedy, he was giving him a "legacy of ashes." Don't read it just before turning out the lights, if you want to sleep well.
Tommy, You just talk about the "takes" of both sides here (in USA). When you have a president hell-bent on doing whatever he wants, what is the difference what either side thinks?
But what about the rest of the world? If U.S. intelligence capabilities are questioned here, can you imagine how confused the rest of the world that relies on our intelligence must be?
This administration has proven time and time again that it can't be trusted. Their initial spin on the "who knew what when" regarding the knowledge of this information, along with Bush's unrelenting saber rattling, make it all so obvious that we were almost duped again.
Thanks to the Bush Administration, the next Administration now has one huge mountain to climb when it comes to restoring faith in America from the rest of the world - friends and foes alike.
This anti-war leftist would instead say, "We don't have the ability to strike against Iran right now (nukes or no nukes), because of the bass-ackward way that this administration of clowns took us into Iraq and Afghanistan," and I would be right.
Regardless of the nukes, we don't have the capability to take on the entirety of the middle east in a land-sea-air war, and that seems to be precisely what Dubya wants to accomplish prior to being booted out of the white house in a little over a year.
"show where you Bush statements came from"
I'm only guessing, but I think TMan refers to this:
"It makes it -- the NIE makes it clear that the strategy we have used in the past is effective. And the reason why we need to make sure that strategy goes forward for the future is because if Iran shows up with a nuclear weapon at some point in time, the world is going to say, what happened to them in 2007? How come they couldn't see the impending danger?"
---George W. Bush addressing reporters about the NIE at the WH press conference.
Hi Pete,
Thanks for the quote.
Looking at it, I can see Bush's point. Maybe we just learned about the stoppage of the Iranian nuclear program back in 2003, but I do believe the Bush diplomacy toward Iran has been in place since before then.
If the NIE report is true, will we ever know the reasons the Iranian's stopped working on their nuclear weapons? Does not Bush's foreign policy deserve some credit for making them stop? You may not like Bush, but if he was basing his Iranian foreign policy on previous NIE reports, it seems to me he has a point.
I have always been more concerned with Iran and the threat that they pose. (This was one of the reasons that I thought that going into Iraq was a bad decision.)
Now I'm worried that Iran is going to be let off the hook. I'm reading reports that Britain and Israel think that the NIE is wrong about Iran dropping it's weapons program. And in any event, we all know that Iran backed out of the IAEA treaty and is continuing to enrich uranium.
I really question how good our intelligence is in Iran and I wonder what would happen if Iran were able to go nuke in a few years. This is going to be a looming crisis for the next administration.
Hold the phone - the United States liberated Iraq?
On Planet Wingnut. To the reality based universe they are OCCUPIED, that is like the opposite of liberation.
Air America, either Ms. Maddow or Rhodes noted that a sizable number of intelligence personnel were ready to spend time in jail if the information was not finally released.
Wrong, Mike Malloy appears to be my source.
I have to admit that this is pretty clever spin. It smells of Karl Rove. Did anyone even talk about this story on the Sunday shows? I know that Meet the Press had Rudy Giuliani for the full hour, and Reliable Sources led with the Imus story. Have they buried it yet?
Nerzog, This whole spin should remind us of Team B of the 70's. ----Iran has a program, we can't find the program, therefore, it must exist.----- I think the Iranian nuclear program is being conducted right next to the building storing the Iraq WMD's.
Do you really think that the Iranian government is pursuing nuclear technology for energy reasons only? What if this intel is just as wrong as the intel that said Iraq had WMD's?
I don't know the answer to addressing this issue but it seems like one would only be fooling one's self if they think Iran does not have ambitons for nuclear weaponry. Let's assume that that tommorow we find out the NIE report was wrong and one of the largest sponsors of terrorism and terrorist organizations is close to full development of nuclear capability. What do we do?
I think Rummy said it best, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Don't you miss the ole' fort? Always good for a bon mot while he flushed our services down the drain.
Conchobar,
I see your point, but we are not talking about a minor nuisance here. We need to be vigilant that Iran is not a nuclear power in terms of it's military. It's bad enought that we have three to five nations with the capability to destroy the world in a matter of 30 minutes , but giving that kind of power to radical theological extremists who have publicly stated the desire to destroy other nations is deadly serious. I would assume if you have a family and children that you would agree that a nuclear Iran is a danger to you, me, your family, and the world.
Quite frankly, no. I do think that a nuclear Pakistan is an imminent danger to everything and everyone I love. The thought of those nukes going rogue keeps me awake at night. I think, whether or not the NIE is right about the Iranians pausing in their quest for nukes, it is right in its judgment that the government of Iran is run by rational people, who operate on a benefit/cost method. The Iranians have a nation to defend, a struggling economy which is what, 1/20th of ours? How many nukes could they produce in 5, 8, whatever years? Not enough to do more than provoke a reaction that would wipe them off the map, and make Persia uninhabitable for the next 1000 years.
A nuclear Iran would be no more an existential danger to us than is the nuclear North Korea. It would be a complication, and would get in the way of the hegemonic ambitions of the Strauzzi crowd, but that's not an entirely bad thing. The administration is seeking, as it successfully did with Iraq, to sow panic. Well, I'm not having any. We've destroyed one country out of fear of a non-existant threat. I don't want to see us do it to another.
In addition, are you anxious to tell the entire Muslim world that "Yes, we are the new Crusaders, and we are out to destroy you.?" If so, attacking a third Muslim country would do the trick nicely, and would fall right in line with Osama's twenty-five year plan.
A more accurate "teaser" would have been "No Nukes in Iran - however the President claims a new intelligence report proves Iran still dangerous" - which of course, Iran is.
Tommy,
I started reading your post and thought to myself, Yep, that would have been a good one... Then I saw you posted it.
Figures. :-)
what do you mean 'which, of course, Iran is' ? On what basis?
Chomsky has made the obvious point, for example, that Iran will never launch an attack on Israel, unless it favours instant annhilation, because that is exactly what Israel is quite easily capable of producing.
So you say 'of course Iran is a threat' but the reality is, with your insulated United States news sources and propaganda, you have a very, very murky understanding of the 'threat' posed by the Iranian regime. And Bush definately has no concept of the most effective way of interacting with Iran.
Sorry, I don't take foreign policy directives from Noam Chomsky.
If you believe Iran is still not dangerous, despite this report, then we disagree.
Oh ok. So I mean, does a balance of power constitute a threat? I just gave you one reason why Iran is not really a threat - the power of the Israeli military and its backers. Whats your reason?
I prefer our elected leaders are honest and upfront about the real threats we face from other foreign countries, regimes and fanatical factions.
I don't want them ratcheted up, or down, for political leverage to use against one party or another.
but that's exactly what they're doing.
Why 'one party or another?' What aspect of this situation includes the Democratic party!? If 18 separate intelligence agencies are saying Iran's nuclear ambitions were abandoned 4 years ago, on what basis are you asserting Iran is a threat that deserves the tabling of the military option???
The issue in this story is Bush falsifying a threat, as I've repeatedly said. Yet you're trying to posit yourself in an imaginary middle ground - I don't get it?! Well, actually, I do get it. lol.
Tom Joad -
I believe Chomsky is wrong about this. The president of Iran is just the type of religious fanatic that might favor total annihilation. I forget all the details, but there's something in Islamic eschatology that discusses armageddon bringing forth the arrival of the Mahdi, or 12th Imam, and subsequently the 'end of times'. Not to mention the 72 virgins, etc.
Anything can happen when you have a fundie nutjob with too much power running your country. Take our current situation in America, for example.
The problem with your concerns is that Ahmadinejad doesn't have that much power. The Iranian constitution doesn't give it to him. He doesn't control the military and has very limited influence on foreign affairs. He mostly has control over domestic policy. The statements he makes that get so many Americans so concerned are simply rhetorical red meat thrown out to his political base.
Even if he had a dozen nuclear weapons and wanted to attack Israel, he wouldn't be able to.
Bill,
I for one perceive Ahmenijad as a mouthpiece for the allatoyahs who have final say in Iran. I may be wrong, but I doubt that Ahmenijad would stay in power very long if he were not espousing the company line. Since we don't hear the Iranian Army leaders expressing any dissent, and since the Iranian Army has infiltrated into Iraq, I think it is safe to assume that they and the allatoyahs are in general agreement with Ahmenijad.
"I may be wrong, but I doubt that Ahmenijad would stay in power very long if he were not espousing the company line."
AA:
I believe you are wrong. You will remember that the Ayatollah Khatami, a progressive (in Shiite terms) was president for two terms, and tried to institute democratic reforms. He was stymied at almost every turn, however, by the Revolutionary Guards and other agencies of the state, all with the tacit approval of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini. Khameni is still in charge, and Ahmadinejad is little more than a pressure valve, making a lot of noise when some steam is released. What power he has is domestic, and he's screwed up the economy so badly he's probably toast when it comes a second term. In any case, in office or out, he makes no geostrategic decisions. Interestingly enough, Khameni, who is top dog both politicallly and religiously, has issued a fatwa condemning the pursuit and use of nuclear weapons (if my information is correct). If true, that is significant. These people take such things very seriously. If, indeed, such a fatwa exists, they will live by it as long as Khameini is in power.
No, I don't agree with you. There is nothing to indicate that Ahmadinejad is voicing the policies of the ruling mullahs. The military wouldn't be likely to challenge him as long as his statements don't affect them, as they don't. Basically, he's given free rein to spout off, even if he's not presenting their positions, as long as his statements aren't a direct challenge to their authority.
I believe recent history in Iran supports that position.
Maybe you should take your foreign policy directives from Noam Chomsky. He's been accurate an awful lot, and your current advice is clearly retarded.
Iran having nuclear stability does in no way add to stability in the region. They are a state who sponsors terrorism and are directly linked to the killing of Americans on the field of battle. Based on sponsoring terrorism alone, allowing them to obtain nuclear weapon capability is a direct threat to our national security. There are plenty radical muslim's in Iran would have no qualms about sacrificing their life to destroy Isreal and the infidel Americans. Chomsky's idea of mutally assured destruction between Iran and Isreal has no revelance given the fact that it would only take less than ten Hiroshima sized bombs to annihilate Isreal as well. I think what you are missing here is that Isreal is surrounded by enemies. Give two nuclear weapons to Syria, Iran, and Egypt respectively and Isreal has big problems. So rationalizing that it is not so bad for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons because they could never use them against Isreal for fear of their own destruction is a weak argument.
Very well said Chris, thank you.
Chris,
Not to mention the likelihood of creating suitcase nukes and smuggling them into either Israel and/or the U.S.
Tehran might feel it can successfully use these or other WMDs via surrogates and smugglers. Simultaneous detonations and electromagnetic pulse would take out Israel before they could counter. (I'm no nuclear expert, so if I am wrong, please correct me.)
Only one suitcase nuke strategically placed, would ruin the U.S. economy and throw the West into a 30's style economic depression.
I do not understand where you're getting these hypotheticals from. Whats your basis? There are plenty of countries and people who have the capability to do a great deal of harm to the United States.
Have you considered that your brand of mass hysteria and gun pointing reactions are the cause of the problem?
I agree with TomJoad above. You may be right that there are individuals within Iran who are capable of such actions, but the government of the country sees itself as having some standing in the world. They have open diplomatic relations with many countries, engage in trade and promote their interests. There simply isn't a benefit to be gained by the government of Iran in taking such actions as you describe.
Also, "simple" nuclear devices are extremely hard to make and maintain. The idea of a small country or terrorist group managing the technology for a "suitcase nuke" is far enough out so as to be almost irrelevant.
In light of the recent and past events in the middle east, if you were the ruling government of (insert name of nation in that region), what actions would you take to protect the sovereignty of your land and people?
Well thats a good question, MHK. Social movement theory is in some respects applicable to governments, too. If you look at social movements like the Civil Rights Movement, Anit-war movements, Native Rights movement in Canada etc etc, attempts at logical persuasion and rational protest often disintegrate into violent confrontation when the government fails to react or discuss with protestors. Its a process. i think it also explains the first and second Palestinian Intifadas.
So in that respect, its utterly important to understand the context and history of Iranian/Palestinian/Syrian radicalism, as the latter stages of a movement against injustice and foreign intervention.
Your question, in that context, suggests more radical forms of defense. I'll paraphrase my favourite author. There were 3 prominent members of the axis of evil (according to Bush.) N.Korea, Iraq and Iran. Iran didn't have weapons, and was invaded. North Korea did have weapons, and wasn't invaded. Iran, we're 'not sure about.' If there was ever an impetus to defend your sovereignty by aquiring nuclear weaponry, the US has offered the Iranian regime the ultimate reasoning.
But really, the US has backed many arab regimes into a corner with unwavering support of Israel and military threats.
Longwinded answer. Sorry.
Bill,
I'm not a nuclear weapons manufacturer so I don't know how much more difficult they are to manufacture than the typical bomb.
You may be correct, but sometime back I remember reading, (and this is a paraphrase,) the Iranian leaders have said they might lose 20 million but Israel would be gone. So I think a good case can be made that the nuclear option for Iran is not based on economics but ideology.
Granted, my scenario may be only remotely possible, but is Israel and/or the U.S. willing to gamble the Ahmenijad is only bluffing in his rhetoric?
It's a lot more expensive, at the very least. The radioactive material alone is far more expensive than any component used in traditional bomb manufacturing, and you have to be able to transport the material safety, and have ways to protect both the material and the workers during the manufacturing process.
Not to nitpick, but WTF is "Isreal"?
More to the point, I don't get the hypothetical "but what if they do have the technology - what will we do with ourselves then?" scenario.
Iran stopped their weapons program. Of course they have the necessary intelligence to develop the weapons - it is no longer secret. They may have a number of people within their country who are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to kill others ... sounds familiar, doesn't it? There are a lot of evil people in a lot of countries, and Iran is undoubtedly ruled by a bunch of bigots.
The questions are: What are we going to do to effectively counter Iran's hostility? What have we done in the past that has been effective? Should we invade, establish a puppet government, and rule by proxy? That seems to be the only idea floating around the pro-war circles.
Perhaps we should try the old diplomacy card. I know, I know, it's so much more fun to play superhero and fly around bombing people because of the what if scenarios that fuel our fantasies. I mean, what if Kiefer Sutherland walked into a room with a terrorist and the only thing that stood between Kiefer and the truth was some pesky anti-torture legislation? My GOD, he would probably not save the world in time!
We need a level-headed approach to nuclear weapons proliferation. The enormity of nuclear weapons, not to mention fundamentalism and hatred, are not to be understated. But I have not seen any proposed "solution" to this problem coming from W; rather, his speech has simply reaffirmed his contempt for information that undermines his rationale for aggression.
A more accurate "teaser" would have been "No Nukes in Iran - however the President claims a new intelligence report proves Iran still dangerous" - which of course, Iran is.
- tommy / Monday December 10, 2007 02:09:20 PM EST ,
====================================================
Nice of you guys to be concerned about accuracy ... but unfortunately, I don't think that's very high on the list of priorities at Fox :)
No one, not even the most dead-ender neocon, has ever accused Iran of having nuclear weapons.
Once again Fox is feeding its audience a blatant lie.
The question we should be asking is what threat does a non-nuclear Iran pose to the US and its interests.
The far right is using the "what if" scenario to try to further their political agenda when there are lots better ways to spend our time.
You are clearly wrong abut the atomic bomb. You are subscrbing to a revisionist critical analysis which has been clearly debunked through ongoing investigation of Japanese radio intercepts during that time. The surrender you speak of was only a attempt to have Stalin mediate a conditional surrender in which the military and emperor remaned in place as well as what gains remained at the time. The generals you speak of I guess would be the Joint Chiefs who were led by Gen. George.C. Marshall who in fact counseled the President that an invasion would be necessary to end the Japanese empire because a Japan with an intact military and emperor would result in another war. That was the consensus. I have no idea which generals you speak of. Some of the Joint Chiefs wanted to avoid an invasion due to casualites and logistics alone. The war was costing over 400,000 lives per month and Japan's postiion was that without a conditional surrender then they would fight to the last. Therefore they formed a vast defense network in which the ratio of defenders to invaders was in thier favor. This was all taken into account and Truman made his decision. I am familiar with the supposition that we done this to overshadow Stalin and show him our might. That is rather conspiratorial given Truman ordered that only military targets be attacked. We understood after Okinawa that invasion of Japan would prolong the war for over a year and cost according to some estimates a half of a million men. These are facts, not conjecture. I would encourage you to read "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by historian Richard B. Frank.
As for your Iran view, I agree that being lied to as a nation is maddening especially if it leads into war. I had that happen to me once. The reality remains that there is no justification or rationalization that Iran should have a nuclear weapon. It's a threat we can not afford.
Lol. revisionist history!?
Admiral William D. Leahy (Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
Herbert Hoover:
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."
General MacCarthur
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
Paul Nitze (Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."
Do i need to keep going or are we done?!
Why did Leahy, Nitze, MacArthur and Hoover hate America?
They hate America's values, the hate America's freedoms. They're against us. We need to bomb their countries and convert them to Christianity... im so confused.... *Sobs*
if the japanese had been so willing to surrender, they could have publiclly done so anytime during the war. if they had said we will surrender if the emperor is allowed to stay on the throne, that would have been accepted in an instant. the american public would have demanded it. what is far more likely is that they wanted no foreign occupation of japan, essentially a cease fire. after battling island by bloody island, the united states and britain were in no mood to accept status quo. the japanese had a long and bloody history across asia, starting in the 30s. they are still resented by many countries in the region for their actions in ww2.
yeah, thats all good and well mefirst, but the point made above is in regards to the military necessity of using the atomic bomb - which, given the quotes, seems to be at the very least, highly disputed.
You can't tell me 200,000 civilian deaths is something that should be overlooked, in the context of those quotes, because 'The US and Britain were in no mood'
why don't you do the complete quote of mine, which was that they were in no mood to maintain the status quo, because they had fought island by bloody island across the pacific. so we were not going to leave the military leaders in charge in japan. not after pearl harbor, the bataan death march, the "rape of nanking" [look it up] and other atrocities. you make it sound like they were begging to surrender and we refused. wrong. they could have gotten the same terms well before hiroshima. as for your quotes, so what. those are opinions, not really backed up by the facts. we were not going to do some years long blockade of japan. and we were not going to accept some "surrender" that was really nothing but a ceasefire. sorry about pearl harbor. let's just pretend it didn't happen. that's what they were saying.
thank you MEFIRST. This joker actually thinks that by posting the opinions of Herbert Hoover, Adm. Leahy, and a McCarther biographer it somehow validates his position that dropping the atom bomb was unceccesary. It has been his classic trademark to conveniently forget that we saved lives, he is only interested in anything subjective which makes America the culprit. Perhaps after understanding that Japan did not want to surrender as he likes to portray and that the Generals who were actually in the White House counseling Truman and actually planning an invasion were in favor of the atomic attack he will admit he is wrong. I seriously doubt it though.
we have definitely made some mistakes in the name of anti communism, supporting people we should not have. not that it wasn't a bad system. it was. but i definitely agree that the hiroshima revisionism is just that. we had the opportunity to get the war over and that was the thing that seemed to do it. we did not start that war. i just try to be fair.
No we are not done. The Joint Chiefs who directly oversee military operations and the Chairmen of the Jont chiefs George Marshall back my stance here sir. You point to Leahy, Hoover and an McCarther biographer. The postng above is factual, you are wrong about the japanese wanting to surrender, Hoover was not a general but an ex-president, and the consensus by the experts at the time validates me not you.
on what basis? I showed you quotes, you didn't show me anything except inane ranting. i can see you getting impatient with yourself because you evidently don't understand this issue at all, and all your dreams and ideas about the United States are being fundamentally shaken. Its ok Chris. I'll hold your hand.
Are you really this inane? Did you not read the Posting above in which I indicated to you what Marshall's thinking was, Marshall was a staunch defende of the Atomic bombings becasue he was the one who was planning the invasion you idiot. Try reading "George C. Marshall: Interviews Reminiscences for Forrest C. Progue" In this book and the one I poointed out above it is abundantly clear that the concensus of the Joint Chiefs and the President was that this was necessary to avoid future American casualities. Thews are direct and attributable sources. You give quotes form Herbert Hoover? Jesus man, I wonder if you have any sympathy for the over 400,000 dying at the hands of the Japanese each month, naw, that gets too much in the way of your subjective viewpoints. You act as if my point is invalid becasue I don't produce quotes. How pitiful, do some objective research you goon.
As far as we know Iran doesn't even have a nuclear weapons PROGRAM much less a nuke.
Why the hysteria?
I've always had a big problem trying to understand the whole nukes issue. Since I was a teen in the 60s I've always questioned why the U.S. should be the ultimate decider of who does and who doesn't have nuclear capabilities - including nuclear weapons? Since the advent of the internet, I see this same question asked time and time again by bloggers around the world.
My simple logic says, "We let the cat out of the bag and are the only country who ever used the bomb, yet somehow we consider ourselves morally superior to anyone else?"
Personally I think nuclear proliferation is as inevitable as human cloning and embryonic stem cell cures. Sure I can see the need to try our damnest to keep this sort of technology out of the hands of madmen. So our goals should be to try to keep madmen out of office, rather than electing them (GW) or propping them up (Saddam Heisen) - but you can never put the jeannie back in the bottle. (...and before I am called a traitor - I won't go so far as say that GW is a madman, only that I think he is capable of pushing the button for a reason that I would consider mad.)
Enlighten me, I'm listening.:)
Why are republicans so SCARED of Iran? I don't get it. They say if they get a nuclear weapon they're going to use it. Are you guys serious? If the government of Iran had a nuclear weapon, and it would take them a LONG time to just get, one, they wouldn't just lob it over the borders into Israel. First, if they did that, Israel would incinerate them with their nuclear weapons, and they have a bunch of them, that we sold them.
Second, they wouldn't do it. They have business dealings all over the world. One errant nuclear weapon would grind to a halt all dealings with other countries all over the world.
Third, Iran is all bark. A country, who has the GDP of Finland, and is rather disliked in the region that it occupies is not going on some crazed invasion anywhere. Even in the most extreme case, if they say bombed Israel, many of the nations around Israel, yes even the Muslim nations, would side with, Israel. Iran doesn't have the manpower, or the military might to compare with Israel, and definitely NOT the US. They haven't fought a war in years, and if I'm correct, Saddam started the war with Iran, not the other way around. It is funny how the US talks about Iran being dangerous, but Iran hasn't started 2 wars in 7 years, and Iran has not destabilized an entire region of the world. The US has though.
In fact, post 9/11, we had started to have pretty good relations with Iran. They helped us in Afghanistan. They helped us post 9/11 with intelligence. They were willing to sit down and talk with us, open diplomatic (official) diplomatic relations, and to hash some things out (uranium enrichment for power production for example), and this offer was brought to the Bush administration. What did we do instead? We placed Iran into some imaginary "Axis of Evil" which of course immediately ended all good will with Iran, and put the US at odds with Iran once again, when things were actually starting to look OK.
It's funny this Axis of Evil business. N. Korea, poor poor country, and if they crossed into South Korea, would be defeated in a matter of months, or less no doubt. Why? They have a large army with no teeth, and not many resources.
Iran? Again, not a lot of money, or military might.
Iraq? They were bottled up so tight under no fly restrictions, and repeated embargoes and other restrictions that they were completely and totally irrelevant, and harmless.
All 3 countries in the "Axis" really posed no threat to the US.
If by "republicans" you mean The Bush Administration, I don't think that they are the least bit scared of Iran - or GW wouldn't be doing all the saber rattling.
You make some great logical points - but until you realize that it's all about oil, nothing makes sense. I'll give you my "Happy Holidays" synopsis...
The Administration knows that in order to proceed with their goals of control of as much of the world’s oil reserves as possible (for the sake of America, of course), with the Iraq plan down the tubes, an invasion of Iran (with oil reserves nearly compatible with what they hoped to gain from Iraq) is next on the list.
If you want some interesting reading, read the following link. Here's one key sentence to grab your interest... "According to high flying, oil insider Falah Al Jibury, the Bush administration began making plans for Iraq's oil industry "within weeks" of Bush taking office in January 2001." This is not some wild conspiracy theory crap. This is from the guy who basically ran our economy for the past dozen years or so.
How the Bush Administration's Iraqi Oil Grab Went Awry(Greenspan's Oil Claim in Context)http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2007/0925oilgrab.htm
The Administration now needs all the support they can get from the House and Senate and are doing what Republicans do best, using fear tactics - just what they did before invading Iran. They need to use any means possible to instill fear into the minds of Americans and to justify an invasion. Last week's National Intelligence Estimates report on Iran's (lack of) nuclear capabilities set them back a bit, but as long as this Administration is in office and determined to carry out their plans, I'm not so sure we can simply breath safe again in regards to Iran.
Add to all of this the fact that Bush, Cheney, and friends have major financial ties to Oil and Military Industrial Corporations, GW's born-again fantasies of spreading "American Values" (codewords for "Christian Values") to the region, religious beliefs that might make his actions fulfillment of some biblical prophecy (Armageddon) - and you have to more than just suspect that something is wrong in Denmark.
The fact that GW might actually believe that his plan is "best for the country", as well as his legacy, makes it all the more scary.
This is how I see it - more believable than any Faux News story, if you ask me. Now do you "get it"?
Bush, responsible for Iran backing off on nuke development? Heck, that guy can't even walk and chew let alone open a door in China.
But he sure can get the Home of the Brave to panic over potential threats.