Remarks from the Fray:
In allegedly supporting some elements of the Iraqi insurgency against the U.S., how is Iran doing anything that the U.S. didn't do in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there? The U.S.S.R. was our avowed enemy, and so we did everything we could do—indirectly and secretly—to thwart their attempts to prop up the Afghani communist regime. We supplied weapons, training and funding to the mujahedeen—including people like Osama bin Laden—and were therefore morally responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of Soviet soldiers.
I'm not saying that that was necessarily a bad thing if looked at in the most brutal terms of cold-war strategy, but it seems easy enough nowadays to make the case that we ended up being hoist by our own petard on 9/11. But the thing is, we did it, and there's no denying it. Even Jimmy Carter, who was president at the time, seems to gloat about it to this day. Therefore, would the Soviets, had they known about our involvement at the time, have been justified in declaring war against us?
One of the big problems with the Bush administration's approach to matters like Iraq and Iran has been that their actions are not based on the idea of a "just cause," but rather, "just 'cause we can." Even leaving aside questions about the efficacy of invading countries like Iraq without really knowing what to do in the aftermath, how can we, as the supposed "beacon of democracy," claim to be a righteous force for good when we can't even be bothered to base our actions on honest or consistent principles?
If the Bush administration can't come up with reasons for attacking Iran that are different from things that we've done ourselves, then maybe they need to go back to the drawing board on this one. Either that or blatantly flaunt the fact that they've essentially become an outlaw regime. In other words, please skip the public hypocrisy.
--fingerpuppet
(To reply, click here.)
Bush's ham-handed efforts to "reach out" to the Iranian people show once again his complete ignorance of history and his utter reliance on the theory that if all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail. Imagine if North Korean strongman Kim Il Sung were to "reach out" to the American public to overthrow the Bush administration. What sort of response do you think there would be? About the same as the Iranian response to Bush's appeal for regime change in Iran.
Engaging Iran in a meaningful and productive way requires far more finesse and intelligence than the Bush team has now, or ever will, possess. Of course the Iranian government is meddling in Iraq, much the same way that we meddled in Afghanistan when the Russians were there. It was in our interests to destabilize the Russian war in Afghanistan, much as it is in Iran's interest to see America fail in Iraq. The sooner we fail, the sooner we leave Iran's doorstep. That is not to say that we should allow such meddling to occur, but making the situation worse by ratcheting up the paranoia in Iran is only going to make things less stable, not more so.
Iran has been the graveyard of American foreign policy since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. Our complicity in having supported the Shah's brutal regime has born bitter fruit ever since his overthrow, and trying to suddenly become the "good guys" is not going to happen anytime soon, especially by labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.
Vietnam is a good example of turning a former enemy into a friend, so that is not to say it cannot happen in Iran. But not by Bush, who will be forever remembered in the middle east as a tyrant and a warmonger, and not without some reason. Every Iraqi citizen killed by U.S. forces, either rightly or wrongly, breeds a new hatred toward the United States that will be repaid in blood for years to come. Bush has sown the seeds for conflict in the middle east for the next several generations, so he cannot now come across as a peacemaker without being laughed right out of the region. It would be like Hitler suddenly wanting to join B'Nai B'rith.
The only possible way that we can begin to change the dynamics of Iran's politics is to leave Iraq, and just wait patiently. Iran is having problems of its own without the efforts of the United States to destabilize it further. By removing America as a scapegoat for its problems, Iran will have ever increasing problems with its restless population that has grown weary of the strong arm tactics of the ruling Mullahs. There will be a time and a place for America to step in, but it is not now, and it is certainly not with our current administration.
--pkunzip37
(To reply, click here.)
(9/5)
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Harry Reid's Clever Scheme To Tax Rich People To Fund Health Care
Fix Your Terrible, Insecure Passwords in Five Minutes
The John Cassavetes Movie That Changed American Cinema Forever
Why Doesn't Health Care Cover Birth Control?
Why Do They Play Bagpipes at Military Funerals?
The Four Reasons Precious Is So Fat
Remarks from the Fray:
In allegedly supporting some elements of the Iraqi insurgency against the U.S., how is Iran doing anything that the U.S. didn't do in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there? The U.S.S.R. was our avowed enemy, and so we did everything we could do—indirectly and secretly—to thwart their attempts to prop up the Afghani communist regime. We supplied weapons, training and funding to the mujahedeen—including people like Osama bin Laden—and were therefore morally responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of Soviet soldiers.
I'm not saying that that was necessarily a bad thing if looked at in the most brutal terms of cold-war strategy, but it seems easy enough nowadays to make the case that we ended up being hoist by our own petard on 9/11. But the thing is, we did it, and there's no denying it. Even Jimmy Carter, who was president at the time, seems to gloat about it to this day. Therefore, would the Soviets, had they known about our involvement at the time, have been justified in declaring war against us?
One of the big problems with the Bush administration's approach to matters like Iraq and Iran has been that their actions are not based on the idea of a "just cause," but rather, "just 'cause we can." Even leaving aside questions about the efficacy of invading countries like Iraq without really knowing what to do in the aftermath, how can we, as the supposed "beacon of democracy," claim to be a righteous force for good when we can't even be bothered to base our actions on honest or consistent principles?
If the Bush administration can't come up with reasons for attacking Iran that are different from things that we've done ourselves, then maybe they need to go back to the drawing board on this one. Either that or blatantly flaunt the fact that they've essentially become an outlaw regime. In other words, please skip the public hypocrisy.
--fingerpuppet
(To reply, click here.)
Bush's ham-handed efforts to "reach out" to the Iranian people show once again his complete ignorance of history and his utter reliance on the theory that if all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail. Imagine if North Korean strongman Kim Il Sung were to "reach out" to the American public to overthrow the Bush administration. What sort of response do you think there would be? About the same as the Iranian response to Bush's appeal for regime change in Iran.
Engaging Iran in a meaningful and productive way requires far more finesse and intelligence than the Bush team has now, or ever will, possess. Of course the Iranian government is meddling in Iraq, much the same way that we meddled in Afghanistan when the Russians were there. It was in our interests to destabilize the Russian war in Afghanistan, much as it is in Iran's interest to see America fail in Iraq. The sooner we fail, the sooner we leave Iran's doorstep. That is not to say that we should allow such meddling to occur, but making the situation worse by ratcheting up the paranoia in Iran is only going to make things less stable, not more so.
Iran has been the graveyard of American foreign policy since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. Our complicity in having supported the Shah's brutal regime has born bitter fruit ever since his overthrow, and trying to suddenly become the "good guys" is not going to happen anytime soon, especially by labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.
Vietnam is a good example of turning a former enemy into a friend, so that is not to say it cannot happen in Iran. But not by Bush, who will be forever remembered in the middle east as a tyrant and a warmonger, and not without some reason. Every Iraqi citizen killed by U.S. forces, either rightly or wrongly, breeds a new hatred toward the United States that will be repaid in blood for years to come. Bush has sown the seeds for conflict in the middle east for the next several generations, so he cannot now come across as a peacemaker without being laughed right out of the region. It would be like Hitler suddenly wanting to join B'Nai B'rith.
The only possible way that we can begin to change the dynamics of Iran's politics is to leave Iraq, and just wait patiently. Iran is having problems of its own without the efforts of the United States to destabilize it further. By removing America as a scapegoat for its problems, Iran will have ever increasing problems with its restless population that has grown weary of the strong arm tactics of the ruling Mullahs. There will be a time and a place for America to step in, but it is not now, and it is certainly not with our current administration.
--pkunzip37
(To reply, click here.)
(9/5)