Attack on Iran inevitable?

Remove all ads!

There were still borders and boundaries in the Middle East before us and the French went there, they just changed hands more often. Little divisions, groups, tippoo's and what have you warred amongst themselves for many, many years. All Western countries brought was a little continuity.

Countries always have to have another country hate, more often than not it is a local neighbour. Blaming other countries for setting a few borders years ago doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. That's like blaming the Vikings or the Romans for the Scots and the Welsh historically having a dislike for English people. Doesn't hold water. Unless I've just got the wrong end of the stick. Wouldn't be the first time .

 

Why Israel's nukes would differ from Iran's (forget who signed what treaty):

1) Israel is not an existential threat to surrounding countries. Sure it meddles in the politics of Lebanon and Syria, but most of the regions countries meddle in eachother's affairs (Iran funds alot of terror in Israel). Sure there issues with setting final boundaries with Palestine, but all this occurs within the borders of Israel and the occupied territories. And yes there's disputed land with Syria and Lebanon. But no one expects that Israel is planning on waging a war of aggression to expand its boundaries beyond its own (and currently occupied) territory.

2) Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Its current elected leader has said so clearly, publicly, and frequently.

On the responsibility of Britain, France, etc for the ME:

1) Sure, in part, but why not blame the Ottomans as well? Actually, its probably better just to blame nationalism generally. Nationalist ideology didn't really hit most of the ME until the breakup of the Ottoman Empire: late compared to Europe. Remember how much damage nationalism did to Europe. Nationalism in the ME spawned lots of "strong leaders" who begat sick countries.

On victimism (victimizationism?)

1) There seems to be a human tendency to blame others for one's own weakness: "It must be Israel's fault," say many in the Arab/Islamic world, as to why their countries are backward in many ways, despite how very small Israel is relative to the Arab countries, despite the huge natural resources in Arab lands vs the lack of oil in Israel, despite their own histories of governmental despotism and corruption. "It must be America's fault," say many in Central and South America, despite their own histories of slavery and oligarchy and exploitation of the land, despite the massive divides between the wealthy and the poor and governmental corruption in nearly all of these countries.

Certainly one can point to all sorts of examples where outside meddling by the powerful has had tragic results, but these rarely constitute root causes IMO.

 

The French and the British were the cause of Hitler's Rise and WWII (as well as Stalin's Rise, IIRC). If they hadn't punished Germany so intensely for WWI, then Germany wouldn't have been in a financial (and moral) crisis, found Hitler to be a better alternative, and let him do what he did. The French wanted revenge, and the British didn't want a superpower like Germany to rise again... But we digress...


EDIT: Whoops, I thought we were just blaming the French and British for the problems of modern wars. This doesn't have to do with anything we've been talking about.

 

Saber, alas, that isn;t quite true. The British moderated Clemencaeau's demands, and actually helped rebuild the German economy. Far from wanting to stop Germany rise again, they actually wanted them to for two reasons:

1. To provide a buffer against communism
2. More important reason- To provide a strong trading partner in Europe.

But, as you said, we digress. Now, the real reason I came here.

Turkish troops move to the Iraq/Iran border

 

Bush will attack Iran with whatever weapons he thinks suitable to the job, unless it is overwhelmingly apparent that he can't get away with doing it. He will do so not because it's the only way to accomplish an objective, but because it's what he wishes to do. The "reasons", whatever they might be, will not be imperatives that compel an action, but excuses to justify an action already decided upon.

Barbara Bush, our President's mother, once related-- no doubt thinking it was "cute"-- that George, Jr., when a boy, enjoyed sticking lit firecrackers down the throats of frogs he had caught, and exploding them. In this, at least, the child is father to the man.

 

Hmm, I disagree. I think that people assume Bush will always do the stupid, arrogant, selfish thing. He is our president, and I think we need to put a little more faith (not supposed to be ironic, by the way) into him - he has a low approval rating, and realizes that what he does affects his future and the future of the world. He is not a stupid man (although, he does not speak well in front of audience), and considering it is not solely his decision, I don't think they (our government) will make a rash decision. Especially considering how badly the ****ed up the last two times (Afghanistan, Iraq).

 

I, ah, disagree. Vehemently.

Suffice it to say I find the notion of putting faith in one's government--and this government in particular--to be an extraordinarily bad idea.

 

According to your own post he is only 0-2, regarding both Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the track record of this bunch, why should we "put a little more faith in them?" Almost everything these guys have done has turned to a steaming pile, so why would this, or anything else for that matter, be any different?

well...yes.

 

Considering the fact that we have no faith in him, and we (the people) can't do anything about it, why should we just sit and complain? Unless we can do something, we should hope that he does the right thing. Putting faith in him, even just a little, at least boosts morale and confidence in him. If, perhaps, he sees that, he won't go and do the stupid thing and try and bomb Iran.

 

Or, maybe it will encourage him that he's doing the right thing when he's really not. No, better that we make our disapproval clear, and try to get him thrown out any way we can.

 

Or that too. I hate him too, by the way, and I think he's done a crappy job, I guess it was hope that was speaking for me...

 

Hope - overwhelmed by SP's unrelenting cynicism

 

They're the same thing, sometimes