More on Gore...

[Big Swami]

I do agree that politicians of all stripes are a little to eager to suggest military action to enhance their stature among the military chauvinist voters where a more creative solution would be infinitely preferable. If a military strike was truly considered to be the "action of last resort", it would never be used, because it's just a miserably ineffective way to solve any problem.

For instance - does anyone here really think that the best way to deal with Iran's snotty attitude and awful human rights record right now is an airstrike? It's like saying that the best solution to being broke is to go to the movies. It's a non-sequitur.

Of course it's a problem - the belief in a wrathful deity who rewards people in the afterlife is totally incompatible with a nuclear materials program. I'm not saying it isn't a big problem, because it is. But military action is probably the worst possible solution you could pick for that problem. What about a trade embargo? Naval blockade? How about we drop leaflets over Iran saying "if you can find a way out of your country, we'll guarantee you citizenship in the US"? That could create a massive drain of educated skilled workers from Iran. How about we infiltrate their nuclear materials labs with saboteurs? There are a million better solutions, but because so many fuckwit lamebrains get full-on wood when they imagine jets and bombs and fire, a politician will always get a little more cred when they suggest a military strike. They'll get people to vote for them who would never vote for any other reason in a million years, and they are the least qualified voters you could think of.

[Balkan]

What about a trade embargo? Naval blockade? How about we drop leaflets over Iran saying "if you can find a way out of your country, we'll guarantee you citizenship in the US"? That could create a massive drain of educated skilled workers from Iran. How about we infiltrate their nuclear materials labs with saboteurs? There are a million better solutions

Military options are potent solutions to certain situations. I agree that the military is not needed yet to solve Iran, but if they somehow get their hands on tactical nukes are you willing to consider military strikes?

[Black Dynamite]

I seem to remember Colin Powell using that particular term in Gulf War daze.

which were the days of another Bush. ouch.

[Tahoe]

For instance - does anyone here really think that the best way to deal with Iran's snotty attitude and awful human rights record right now is an airstrike? It's like saying that the best solution to being broke is to go to the movies. It's a non-sequitur.

Snotty attitude is what you call it? I call it defiant and extremely dangerous. Dems and Reps agree on that, Swam. I think that is really an underestimation of whats going on to call it a 'snotty attitude' and thats it.

Bush has been lobying for one of the Arab nations to take the lead on stopping Irans nuclear program. The new France gov't and German gov't are now behind Bush's efforts. Refer to France's latest speech at the UN, I think it was. The world is coming together and guess what, Bush hasn't changed one bit. They are moving to his position.

But I will answer your question this way. Yes, I think could be the only way to go if they move forward and the rest of the world wants to turn a blind eye to Iran.

[Uncle Mxy]

1.You are not going far enough back. If you want a true starting point to blame for the messes, we look to the British and French Colonial Powers that divided the Middle East into what we see today after the fall of the Ottoman’s in 1918. How else due you explain the straight lines set up as border contours in the Middle East? As for picking options, you can thank the Truman Doctrine for that direction. After 1947, President Truman decided to pursue the policy of “Containment” to stop countries from entering the Soviet Bloc, since then and till the fall of the Soviet Union that has been the foreign policy of the United States towards the Soviet Union.

Key word: "our own making", as in "U.S.". In 1918, the British and French Colonial powers weren't us. And the Truman Doctrine doesn't jibe very neatly with our Iran and Iraq dynamic of the 1980s. Iran was on its own side.

2. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are two separate entities, and are not to be combined. The Taliban were a loose alliance of Afghanis who partnered with other Afghanis Warlords to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. Would you believe that most of the Taliban were not even Afghanis? They were in fact mostly Saudis and Pakistani and were funneled into the country through Pakistan.

The evolved from the mujahideen, who were given much foreign support as well. One of the biggest supporters was this guy named Osama, a Saudi, and later the Taliban concealed Osama's Al Qaeda activities. No, they're not the same organization, but they're tied together. And yeah, I meant to put a "/" next to them -- Taliban/Al Qaeda. Whoopty-do.

This is false, the Taliban rose to power on the platform of bringing Islamic rule to the country.

There was also a strong desire to get out of the thumb of the big powers using them as a pissing ground. Again, it's fairly reminiscent of the Iranian Revolution, which is why I said as much.

The Soviets went into the country to expand their influence and gain territory in the Middle East. This was possible only by the fact that the 1970s were a good time for the Soviet Union. America had received a tarnished reputation in Vietnam, Eastern Europe was pacified so they supported the local Afghan Communist Party and helped them take over, sounds familiar doesn’t it?

The Afghanis were trying to keep Afghanistan under their thumb amidst a growing separatist movement. The relatively-progressive leader (I forget his name, a Musharraf-like figure so "progressive" in relative terms) wanted to get away from under the Soviets and was killed by the KGB. The new government established in his wake wasn't able to take control and cried out for Soviet help. The Soviets invaded rather than have chaos on its borders.

3. Here is a history question for you, what was the underlying factor that caused the U.S to help install the ousted Shah of Iran? Answer: Look up Operation Ajax and marvel at the fact that it was the British who wanted the liberal Prime Minister Mossadegh removed because he threatened to nationalize the British controlled oil companies. Now then, when the Shah was about to be overthrown what was response of President Carter? Did he help his ally? No and as a result we get the Islamic Republic or Iran who, in one of the most daring acts of humiliation seizes the American Embassy and takes American hostages. Was that not an act of war? Did the Islamic Republic not take over sovereign American territory? Did they not violate international law? How long did the Hostage Crisis last? 444 days, far longer than needed. As for Iraq, the U.S only began supplying Saddam after both sides attacked neutral oil tankers. National Interests were being harmed by this war and President Regan sought to punish Iran not for targeting tankers but for the hostage crisis.

And then there was Iran-Contra... Yeah, I knew of Operation Ajax (but I forgot the name until you mentioned it -- I'm writing this off the cuff from my own memories, not with Google-fu). But, I'm not sure exactly what your point here is. I wasn't trying to give a huge overall history lesson. I was mostly trying to point out how "what we did" was a function of "what the Soviets did", how Gore second-guessing Bush without mentioning the Soviets (or Israel for this matter) is disingenuous. Anyone could've made a Gore-like rant about our worldwide activities, backing despots and stupid situations that come back to kick us in the ass. And, if you ignore the Soviet chess match, we come across as even more profoundly stupid than we were.

[Balkan]

Key word: "our own making", as in "U.S.". In 1918, the British and French Colonial powers weren't us. And the Truman Doctrine doesn't jibe very neatly with our Iran and Iraq dynamic of the 1980s. Iran was on its own side.

I am adding a footnote to your thought that those mistakes "the U.S made" have prior history before the U.S even arrived.


The evolved from the mujahideen, who were given much foreign support as well. One of the biggest supporters was this guy named Osama, a Saudi, and later the Taliban concealed Osama's Al Qaeda activities. No, they're not the same organization, but they're tied together. And yeah, I meant to put a "/" next to them -- Taliban/Al Qaeda. Whoopty-do.

I don't recall the Taliban ever concealing the fact they were harboring Osama.


There was also a strong desire to get out of the thumb of the big powers using them as a pissing ground. Again, it's fairly reminiscent of the Iranian Revolution, which is why I said as much.

The Afgani's were repelling an invasion by the Soviet Union. I don't recall them stating to the powers, "we don't want anything to do with you!" Otherwise, why did they allow all these foreigners who were supplied by the Great Powers into their country?


The Afghanis were trying to keep Afghanistan under their thumb amidst a growing separatist movement. The relatively-progressive leader (I forget his name, a Musharraf-like figure so "progressive" in relative terms) wanted to get away from under the Soviets and was killed by the KGB. The new government established in his wake wasn't able to take control and cried out for Soviet help. The Soviets invaded rather than have chaos on its borders.

I remember a civil war inside Afghanistan was going on before the Soviets invaded, but this progressive you speak of? I haven't a clue, and from what I recall, the Afghani's never cried to Moscow. In fact the Afghani Communist were never in control of the countryside, all they had was the cities which came under constant attack.


And then there was Iran-Contra... Yeah, I knew of Operation Ajax (but I forgot the name until you mentioned it -- I'm writing this off the cuff from my own memories, not with Google-fu). But, I'm not sure exactly what your point here is. I wasn't trying to give a huge overall history lesson. I was mostly trying to point out how "what we did" was a function of "what the Soviets did", how Gore second-guessing Bush without mentioning the Soviets (or Israel for this matter) is disingenuous. Anyone could've made a Gore-like rant about our worldwide activities, backing despots and stupid situations that come back to kick us in the ass. And, if you ignore the Soviet chess match, we come across as even more profoundly stupid than we were.

I only needed to google-fu to make sure I spelled the ousted Iranian Prime Minster's name right. I apologize for not being clear, I believed you were writing a history lesson slanted against America for being the root of all the Middile East's problems. Therefore, I was writing on that pretext and somewhat disagreeing with you.

[Uncle Mxy]

No, not really slanted against America, just trying to point out that we were everywhere, as were the Soviets. The Cold War led to all kinds of crazy shit. And, it may yet turn out to be the case that the world really needs a couple superpowers at extreme ends to keep everyone else in line, as scary as that sounds. <deep sigh>

[Tahoe]

I always figured "weapons of mass destruction" was an easier bundle of words than "biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons". Google shows that the term was definitely in vogue at the time of the Gulf War, well before Clinton was on the national radar. I seem to remember Colin Powell using that particular term in Gulf War daze.

After the Gulf War B41 wanted ZERO to do with Sadam Hussein and Iraq. He was being criticized in some(most) corners for not finishing the job. I hardly think it would be him or his admin talking about how SH had WMDs. Cuz it would only make him look worse for not finishing the job. (41's worst decision was leaving the Kurds high and dry in the months just after the Gulf war, btw)

I'm not saying it was never used by CP, but Clinton Gore made it a household phrase. Using it for political gain? Prolly, but thats what our politicians do on both sides.

[Big Swami]

Snotty attitude is what you call it? I call it defiant and extremely dangerous. Dems and Reps agree on that, Swam. I think that is really an underestimation of whats going on to call it a 'snotty attitude' and thats it.

All I can do is say that I take the problem seriously and hope, in vain, that you read what I'm writing. But just because Joe Lieberman is involved with the Republicans on something doesn't make it bipartisan. Iran is decades away from making weapons-grade fissionable materials. I don't want them to have these materials under any circumstances. So how seriously am I supposed to take that? You tell me. Am I not alarmed enough for you?

Bush has been lobying for one of the Arab nations to take the lead on stopping Irans nuclear program. The new France gov't and German gov't are now behind Bush's efforts. Refer to France's latest speech at the UN, I think it was. The world is coming together and guess what, Bush hasn't changed one bit. They are moving to his position.

I wouldn't go that far, Tahoe. They have their own interests that aren't 100% aligned with ours.

But I will answer your question this way. Yes, I think could be the only way to go if they move forward and the rest of the world wants to turn a blind eye to Iran.

But are they turning a blind eye to Iran or are they "coming together" on this issue? You can't have it both ways.

Look - the military, like most government institutions, is not a delicate instrument. It's not clever enough to solve subtle problems. There's nothing "surgical" about airstrikes. The thing about bombs is: they blow up. If the solution to your problem requires a deft touch, the US government is not the best instrument of choice. The government is a bulldozer, not a scalpel. If you have termites in your house, you can use ingeniously crafted chemicals that interfere with their reproductive process, or you can fire up a flamethrower and just go nuts.

I find myself having to say this to Republicans a lot, but this is a complicated issue. It's not black-and-white. Iran wants to know, as a sovereign country, what the fuck is wrong with them having nuclear materials if Argentina or Pakistan are allowed to have them. Do you want to be the one to tell them the truth? That it's because their religious beliefs make them untrustworthy, after we've been telling them all this time that "the USA is not at war with Islam"? Do we tell them that "the reason we don't want you to have nuclear weapons is because we don't have much faith in the stability of your government" when we've been working to overthrow their government for decades?

The more we move toward war with Iran, the more we look like hypocrites. I acknowledge that looking like a hypocrite isn't the worst thing in the world, but it means a great deal in terms of what results you're going to get if you ask a world full of potential allies to align with you.

[Tahoe]

Its not Joe Lieberman, its Germany, France and (if you believe reports) Arab countries that don't want Iran getting nukes. France and Germany did a reversal, France moreso than Germany, for sure. If Bush goes to war, its wrong and if he negotiates behind the scenese, its wrong?

Para 2. I was just trying to answer your hypothetical, or maybe premature question, "is military or war the answer? I answer the same way, if the world doesn't coalesce and Iran is getting close, then Yes. Not now because they aren't that close and momentum is shifting in the US direction.

The reason isn't because of religion, its because Dictator Tahoe says, No more countries in the world can have nuclear weapons. End of subject.

What are your thoughts? Because Paks and India have them, Its ok, everyone can have them? I understand that mentality if 1 of your kids got a bike and the other didn't. But it doesn't work that way with Nuclear bombs, imo.