Iranian leaders confidently threaten U.S.

[HaloNoble6 0]

Is it just me, or does it seem like the lunatic Iranian leaders know more about America's cultural state than American leaders do? They speak clearly, smilingly, directly. American officials speak vaguely, apologetically, pleadingly. (link)

Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.

The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

[...]

And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP that a US push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance."

"She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action.

"We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile.

On Thursday, Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the United States "will look at the full range of options available to the United Nations."

"There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

I'm beginning to get very worried...

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Is it just me, or does it seem like the lunatic Iranian leaders know more about America's cultural state than American leaders do? They speak clearly, smilingly, directly.

It is hard at times to identify typical Middle-Eastern bluster, but I think that these Iranian leaders are just begging for destruction, much as Saddam did himself. That is, after all, one reason we refer to them as lunatics.

American officials speak vaguely, apologetically, pleadingly.

Sadly, that is the case for too many, infected with altruism as they are. We need more leaders like the voices heard speaking out against the Islamo-facists at the recent ARI "unveiling the Danish cartoons" events, but it takes time for philosophy to wend its way through the culture.

I'm beginning to get very worried...

Over what, in particular?

[HaloNoble6 0]

Worried that the audacity of our enemies, both in word and in action, will not be answered by our own leaders.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Worried that the audacity of our enemies, both in word and in action, will not be answered by our own leaders.

Oh, I see. But, as confused as our leaders are, and as bad as they planned, they did go into Afghanistan and Iraq with enough force to make a difference. Hopefully they will have learned from the mistakes made there, and when they go to Iran (where they should have started) they will just destroy all that needs destroying without troops occupying the country, and leave it to the decent Iranians to reclaim their country.

But, in either case, this "audacity of our enemies" is mostly the blabbering of lunatic mystics, and they and what they created can be destroyed fairly easily. Even by Bush, possessing half the brain and morals that a completely just and selfish act would require.

[tommyedison 0]

Its not the Iranians that are worrying me. If they had been alone, even with nukes, they would have been no threat. But they are not alone.

Who are their friends?

Russia

China

North Korea

Most of Middle East

Venezuela

etc.

It is the potential formation of a Russia-China-Middle East coalition that is especially worrying because the way things are, we are heading towards a world war. Even that won't be frightening but the problem is that US and the rest of the West doesn't want to fight.

[tommyedison 0]

I meant to say "they would not have been much of a threat" in the first line of the above post, not "no threat". Sorry.

[CowboysFan 0]

Even by Bush, possessing half the brain and morals that a completely just and selfish act would require.

Wow. I feel that you are overly generous. I wish Bush possessed half the morals neccessary to fight Iran. I would feel safe. IMO he doesn't even possess 1/100 of what is neccessary. You are way more optimistic than me.

[MichaelJ 0]

Especially since he is holding discussions with Iran about Iraqs future. If he saw them as a dangerous threat, why discuss Iraq with them?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Even by Bush, possessing half the brain and morals that a completely just and selfish act would require.

Wow. I feel that you are overly generous. I wish Bush possessed half the morals neccessary to fight Iran. I would feel safe. IMO he doesn't even possess 1/100 of what is neccessary. You are way more optimistic than me.

I admit, in general, to being more optimistic than most. But Bush used the half brain to identify and name an enemy, and he used the half morals to partially destroy them. A full brain would have identified the worst of our enemies, and a full sense of justice and morality would have destroyed them completely. But I give Bush credit for the half that he did, poor as it is. Besides, he is certainly better than John Kerry, who probably would have apologized for 9/11.

[PhilO 0]

Who are their friends?

Russia

China

North Korea

Most of Middle East

Venezuela

etc.

Eh. I wouldn't place much stock in the practical nature of their "friends" if the U.S. actually went after Iran with enough force to take down the regime (as it should have done years ago). Russia was "friends" with Iraq too - remember the Scud (rhymes with dud) missiles they sold to Iraq? Iran simply has many billions of oil dollars and their "friends", outside of the real friends the Islamic fanatics, will keep selling them stuff in mercenary fashion until Iran is wiped out.

Based on what I've been reading, the main immediate problem with doing an incomplete job with Iran is their biological warfare programs. It is probable that former Soviet bioweapons scientists were lured to Iran after the Soviet collapse, and there's little doubt that they can at least duplicate their previous industrial scale efforts at bioweapons production, if not surpass them. Iran has more money, and the world is now much more scientifically and technologically advanced in biology than when they started. It may not take many operatives to release a devastating attack on America with those weapons, which makes it logically imperative to ensure that those facilities are completely destroyed and can't be rebuilt - i.e. a more or less total attack, not fractional measures.

[tommyedison 0]

Eh. I wouldn't place much stock in the practical nature of their "friends" if the U.S. actually went after Iran with enough force to take down the regime (as it should have done years ago). Russia was "friends" with Iraq too - remember the Scud (rhymes with dud) missiles they sold to Iraq? Iran simply has many billions of oil dollars and their "friends", outside of the real friends the Islamic fanatics, will keep selling them stuff in mercenary fashion until Iran is wiped out.

But the fact is that the US most likely will not go after Iran militarily. The administration is against it and sadly so is the American public.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But the fact is that the US most likely will not go after Iran militarily. The administration is against it and sadly so is the American public.

But just the other day Bush was quoted as saying that a nuclear strike against Iran was still an option (washingtonpost.com, April 18):

In a brief question-and-answer session with reporters in the White House Rose Garden, Bush was asked whether U.S. options in dealing with Iran "include the possibility of a nuclear strike" and whether his administration is planning for such a prospect. He replied: "All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically, and we're working hard to do so."

And a Bloomberg poll a week ago in the Los Angeles Times (I do not have the reference handy) showed 47% of Americans in favor of military action against Iran, and 40% opposed.

[tommyedison 0]

But just the other day Bush was quoted as saying that a nuclear strike against Iran was still an option (washingtonpost.com, April 18):

They always say that all options are on the table. But when it comes to action, they puff out.

And a Bloomberg poll a week ago in the Los Angeles Times (I do not have the reference handy) showed 47% of Americans in favor of military action against Iran, and 40% opposed.

47% to 40% is a very small and bad margin when the vast majority of the country says Iran is a grave threat.

On the other hand, a Gallup poll (I can't reference it now since it is now subscription only) showed that more than 50% oppose military action and 78% want UN to take the lead in the charge against Iran.

Iran declares that it will execute terrorist attacks in case of even a small strike and Condi Rice says we are pushing for dialogue. It looks like America's psychological will for self-defense has collapsed.

[Free Capitalist 0]

I admit, in general, to being more optimistic than most. But Bush used the half brain to identify and name an enemy, and he used the half morals to partially destroy them. A full brain would have identified the worst of our enemies, and a full sense of justice and morality would have destroyed them completely. But I give Bush credit for the half that he did, poor as it is. Besides, he is certainly better than John Kerry, who probably would have apologized for 9/11.

I share in this evaluation, and I'm perhaps even more optimistic. Out of a 100, I would say Bush deserves a 50 and Kerry a 1, and I completely fail to unable to understand those who give Kerry a 1 and Bush a 2. What Kerry would do, and what Clinton did do, are almost inconceivably so much worse, that I just don't understand how even what Bush did could come anywhere near that.

However, the final tally on his presidency is still open, and we will have to see how Bush acts in the last two years, but given his track record of caring little about what Europe thinks, and even less about what Middle East thinks, I am hopeful that he will either invade Iran himself, get a coalition to invade it (since we're a bit short on troops now), order a powerful strike, and in any case somehow disable Iran's nuclear capacity. He still obviously has the capacity to do nothing, but as of now I'm pretty hopeful, especially since even the media seems to be on his side (!).

[MichaelJ 0]

However, the final tally on his presidency is still open, and we will have to see how Bush acts in the last two years, but given his track record of caring little about what Europe thinks, and even less about what Middle East thinks, I am hopeful that he will either invade Iran himself, get a coalition to invade it (since we're a bit short on troops now), order a powerful strike, and in any case somehow disable Iran's nuclear capacity. He still obviously has the capacity to do nothing, but as of now I'm pretty hopeful, especially since even the media seems to be on his side (!).

I strongly disagree with that. Ordering US soldiers to withhold their fire on the Middle East mosques even tho they are bases for terrorists, is most definately caring what the Middle East thinks. And he cares about their views to the point that he is willing to sacrifice US lives to make sure that they don't get offended.

There is also the fact that the State Department which ultimately answers to him, under his watch, issued statements saying freedom of speech has to be combined with being responsible and thus leaving the cartoonists out to dry. That is also caring about what the people in the Middle East think, over Americas own ideals.

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

I strongly disagree with that. Ordering US soldiers to withhold their fire on the Middle East mosques even tho they are bases for terrorists, is most definately caring what the Middle East thinks.

Just the other day the Marines fired at a Masq with 120mm tank rounds where numerous Islamists were firing on US Marines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=202nBvoJ2Fw

Needless to say these Marines weren't to worried about upsetting Muslim sensibilities in this video. I don't know how well this represents the overall picture or the higher ups in the military, however.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Well I'm not really interested in whitewashing Bush actions, but I do have to say that at least some of the government's public statements are merely rhetorical allowances, nothing more. Although there have been plenty of times when Bush was much softer than he should have been, and many opportunities were missed for a stronger and principled statement than was actually made, in general, overall terms, given the current context of American society, I think Bush is doing an alright job. Some allowances have to be made for political and tactical considerations, and it's much easier for us to imagine an American president declaring a war on Islam than it would be for such an actual president to consider pitting his army against two billion men. A president has to make tough decisions, and given the context of our culture, not a platonic Ideal of a country, Bush is doing sort of alright.

So I'm less concerned with what Bush says (although he could say more, and say it better), and more with what he does. Given that track record, I'm relatively hopeful that Iran will bite off much more than they will be able to chew, and we'll live to fight another day (and elect better presidents in the future, which is a lot more than what Clinton or his ilk would ensure for us). But again, time will tell, and he still has a lot of time to make mistakes and slide his record further into the negative, although luckily the segment of the country that supports him will not be happy with appeasement.

I know this is such a contentious topic for all, so I'm not really interested in "fighting it out" if someone really opposes this view.

[MichaelJ 0]

A president has to make tough decisions, and given the context of our culture, not a platonic Ideal of a country, Bush is doing sort of alright.

I have not studied Plato much at all. Can someone who is familiar with his philosophy, communicate to me what point that statement is trying to communicate to me is?

From what I know of Platos work, ideals are divorced from reality. There is perfect goodness, perfect chair and so on in some true world and what we define as chairs or so on are just reflections.

If my understanding of that bit is correct, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that to understand the ideology of Islam as the enemy and to actually act on it(i.e. not refrain from bombing terrorists in mosques) is an ideal divorced from reality?

And since we make judgements based off reality, are you saying that we should not judge Bush too harshly precisely because modern culture has a lot of flaws instead of judging off which actions we know to be right?

[CowboysFan 0]

I know this is such a contentious topic for all, so I'm not really interested in "fighting it out" if someone really opposes this view.

Yes, there is much disagreement with the application of philosophy to the current war; ie exactly what type of advocacy is best. I favor Yaron Brook's and Dr. Lewis' arguments for total war. Now given the state of our culture I realize that is an impossibility but I feel that whitewashing Bush (which *is* what I think you did) serves no purpose. I agree with Nick Provenzo that Objectivist's should make the case for a consistently rational non self-sacrifical foreign policy. Our current foreign policy is not "alright" and is nowhere near what Objectivism would demand.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Michael,

And since we make judgements based off reality, are you saying that we should not judge Bush too harshly precisely because modern culture has a lot of flaws instead of judging off which actions we know to be right?

Something like that. A president is an expression of the culture around him, and I don't think we should expect him to act completely at odds with the rest of the country, let alone the people that actually voted him into office with their own specific expectations and values.

CowboyFan,

I favor Yaron Brook's and Dr. Lewis' arguments for total war.

As do I -- in principle, and if I were a president.

Our current foreign policy is not "alright" and is nowhere near what Objectivism would demand.

Again, the question is not what we should "demand", but what we can "expect". Can we expect Bush to protect us from Iran, and could we expect Kerry to do the same if he were elected, is the issue.

I mean I see your larger point that Bush's policies will only ever improve if people continue demanding, no matter how few of them there are, and I agree that in that sense, we should continue demanding. But we should also keep our actual expectations reasonable, is all I'm saying.