Elphaba

I hoped this letter would make it to the 'net and it appears Le Monde has acquired and translated a copy. One of the things that makes this letter so unusal is that there has been no direct contact between Iran and the US in 27 years. I would like to discuss what each of us believes is the intent of this letter. My initial thought is that Ahmadinejad is hoping to gain world sympathy for Iran, rather than offering diplomatic engagement to resolve the nuclear standoff. I need to read the letter more closely and give more thought to it.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051006A.shtml

Rekna

Holy crap that isn't a letter that's a novel! I started reading it but it flows very poorly. I'm guessing this is due to the translation and differeces between the two languages. From the bit I read it only seems to take jabs at the US and Bush and wasn't designed to start dialog.

Nirvana

Ye i agree with Rekna. it is jab after jab, mixed in with a little but of religious rhetoric and topped off with a forecast of the impending end of "cruel governments."

next please..=P

filtherton

He's definitely right about bush being a horrible christian.

Nirvana

LOL

I am not a religious person nor have i ever been. i didnt really care what the man had to say in regards to relious piety or anything of that sort. i was more interested to see if the man had anything constructive to bring to th epolitical arena besides wiping jews off the face of the map or how evil everyone else is.

djtestudo

Sounds to me either a case of Pot v. Kettle, or jealosy that, in his mind, our President pulled something off that he is trying to do.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

maximusveritas

What I find worrying about this letter and the previous "gaffes" by Ahmadinejad is that they seem to show that he doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about him. I'm not sure if this is simply due to a lack of diplomatic skills or if he truly doesn't care. If it's the latter, that makes him and his regime potentially dangerous.

I wonder how long it'll be before the Republican hacks start comparing this letter to the rhetoric from Democrats.
Well, a quick search from Google reveals that it didn't take them long at all. Fox News' John Gibson, who's never been afraid of making intellectually dishonest arguments, started things off about 6 hours ago. It's so bad I won't even bother linking to it.

rainheart

It's quite poignant really, while I disagree with the man and his policies and his views that the belief in an abrahamic monotheist god is the proper solution, he covers a lot of important points about the inherent contradictions of such styles of political parties- parties which preach the opposite of what they do and deliberately fail to distinguish such things, and at the same time those very parties are cheered on by a stupified populous who, as it turns out, is ridiculously bad at judging what is in it's best interests.

But, you don't have to worry. In the western world, people don't think with their brains anymore, they think with their gut. This letter will be rejected for what it will make it's rejectors feel, rather than the ideas it presents.

The first few cases in proving the above point would be taking a gander at the first few replies this thread has garnered.

Like the truthout article explains: "more to be gained by sabre-rattling than peacemaking," and I believe both sides are horrendously guilty of sabre-rattling (to say the least).

red0blivia

hmm... i seem to have gotten something very different from this than most of you.

i am an atheist, but that is beside the point.
this was a letter from a devoutly religious man to another who professes to be so. for people who are deeply religious, the principles of their god/religion is a integral part of ... well, everything.
i think the points he made about the enormous gap between the ideals of christian mythology and the actions of a man who claims to subscribe to them is valid.
however, the religious tones of the letter were of less interest to me than the injustices mentioned of the current conflict between the bush admin. and the iranian government, the iraqi invasion (including the events leading up to it), and various global relations.

do i think think his letter was an attempt to come to some sort of solution or compromise? no.
but i don't think that he should even be asked, much less, required to compromise or desist their nuclear program, and i think he articulated the reasons for that quite well.

i think it is pretty obvious that the letter was meant to outline the hypocrisies that bush, his administarion, and their agenda represent.
to draw attention to the contradictions and all the harm that has been caused by the demands, threats, military invasion/attacks, and the spineless, regurgitative media- (as well as several global issues, in which the u.s has either been complicit or has been the catalyst).

he was, in essence, saying: 'go look in the mirror, and tell me how you can live with yourself. is this really who you want to be? is this really the legacy you wish to leave behind?' ... telling him to denounce his 'evil' ways and return to god. (i was pretty amused by this.)
what is the motive?
perhaps, he was attempting to appeal to bush's senses. (not likely)
or, maybe, he knew this would draw interest and circulation, and that all of his points would be brought to the attention of the american people and the world (including those who are not, already, aware of the issues he addressed or have not made all of the connections), without filtration or spin by the corporate-controlled media.

ratbastid

Yep. That was my first thought too.

"Here's a Terrist (He's Muslim, right? He doesn't like America, right? So he's a Terrist!) who's criticizing Our President. The same way those damn liberals criticize Our President! So if you criticize Our President, you're just like those Terrists!"

All that aside, there's a certain diplomatic cunning in this letter. It says what many other leaders and countries have wanted to say for a long time. As the next target in US sights, he has very little to lose by telling it like it is--and perhaps a great deal to gain by aligning the sentiments of those nations that are sick of being bullied by the great hypocrite America.

Charlatan

It's funny you could change, Ahmadinejad, for Bush and the statement would still be valid.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

holy cow. I was just thinking that very thing. change anything muslim with christian and vice versa and it could have been a letter written by W.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

reconmike

I wonder how long it is going to be before the Democrats and the liberal talking head media starts spouting " we are with him, this letter is awesome".

I hope Bush's reply letter reads something like;

Hey whack job Ahmadinejad,
Keep building nukes and your going to meet allah sooner than you think.

This letter sounds like a speach Hitler would have rattled off during the late 30's.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

silent_jay

Opps, didn't take long for the first Hitler comparisson only 13 posts.

As for the letter, he makes some good points, but both leaders are too much the same to truly see just how alike theyreally are.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

roachboy

peculiar letter.

i am a little perplexed by rice's reaction to it--i wonder if things would have gone the same way had the fact of the letter not been released to the press. you could read it as a curious kind of overture for talks. the response--that the letter does not address the specific questions about the nuclear program--is at once correct technically and beside the point in fact---it makes me wonder what rice et al were expecting--perhaps a more grovelling letter, something more in keeping with the delusions of the Hegemon.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

host

Hey mike....c'mon over to my new 31 percent thread. I'd enjoy reading your reaction to the Goss, Foggo, and Lewis news reports.

Who has more innocent blood on his hands....involvement in more foreign coups, appointments of more corrupt and dysfunctional cronies....as far as dollar for dollar impact on their respective, national treasuries....Bush or Ahmadinejad? Isn't amazing that such a question could even be asked?

More amazing that the answer is not Ahmadinejad.
mike....you voted for our own version of "Ahmadinejad", isn't it time to hold him accountable here, instead of scapegoating the Iranian head of state?

ubertuber

To be fair, that's not SO surprising - the holocaust and Israel are integral parts of Ahmadinejad's letter.

I agree with roachboy in that I was struck by how peculiar the letter was. It actually struck me as surprisingly personal and informal... This is definitely one of those times when we're losing a lot of important tone and nuance by reading translations.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Jimellow

I didn't read the entire letter, but of this portion I did read, this stood out:

I tend to agree with this sentiment. Why shouldn't Iran be able to pursue nuclear development? Solely because they might develop a nuclear weapon as well? Is that the sole reason, or am I missing something?

It seems to me that the countries that currently do have nuclear weapons are now speaking out against those attempting to developing their own. I'm curious if their reasoning is solely to maintain a tactical advantage, or if their reasons for opposition are otherwise justified.

__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

docbungle

I'm also interested in these questions. Discussions never seem to go in this direction.

__________________
Bad Luck City

Elphaba

My second read of the letter found greater inner coherence and a more respectful tone. Ahmadinejad (A) first acknowledges the faith shared by he and Bush (B). B has certainly presented himself as being guided by God, so this would be appropriate. A also emphasizes our shared profit, Jesus, which is always followed by "peace be unto him." I believe that phrase is ordinarily reserved for Mohammed so clearly A wishes to be respectful.

Then, very much like the teacher that he is, A lays out the tenets of faith and asks B to compare his behavior to those tenents. He remains respectful, but one can only come away with B is seriously misguided or a hypocrite. Ouch.

I don't think the letter is going to budge B in any way and perhaps it was never intended to. I read recently that political and religious leaders of Islam attempt to model their behavior after Mohammed. One specific behavior was that he wrote letters to his enemies.

Ustwo

Because it would be nice if nutballs didn't have bombs able to level a city.

Its called common sense.

It was bad enough with the USSR vrs NATO, now imagine if every piss ant unstable backassword nation had nukes that could strike any target in the world. Sooner or later one of them is going to use them, I'd rather we not see that happen anytime soon.

This is not a game of chess, its not about whats fair and playing a good game, its about survival and winning. A nuclear armed Iran is not in anyones best intersts, including the Iranian citizens as if these nutballs try to use them, just what do you think the response would be?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

aceventura3

The letter is a pretext for a declaration of war.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

jorgelito

Ok, I'll give it a shot (we are talking theory and statecraft here, not whether or not they actually have nuclear weapons):

In theory there really shouldn't be any reason why Iran should not be able to pursue nuclear development, especially in a vacuum.

The argument that it makes economic sense to do so - export oil, use nulcear energy at home makes a ton of sense. It is indeed smart for them to take this path.

However, taken from a US or western point of view, Iran should not develop nuclear energy(unspervised) for the following reasons (as far as I can tell):

1. Start with the premise that Iran's nuclear energy pursuit is actually for weapons - that changes things drastically - NOTE: No one is opposed to Iran having nuclear energy; it is a trust issue - the opponents want check/inspections in place to make sure that nuclear energy isn't diverted to weapons use.

2. So what if Iran has nuclear weapons? Well, there are a couple of angles on this one.
a. Nothing wrong at all - realists such as Kenneth Waltz posit that EVERYONE
should have nuclear weapons to ensure that NO ONE (in their right mind)
would use them - sort of a MAD gone wild. Further, the argument follows
that having nuclear weapons make an actor more responsible. So in that
vein, nothing wrong with Iran having them.

b. What "threat" does Iran pose if nuclear? Well, the main problem stems
from Iran's grand strategy in terms of foreign policy.
i. We know that they have "threatened to wipe Israel off the map". It's
really hard to justify this as anything other than a threat (at best,
rhetoric).
ii. Iran is a known state-sponsor of terrorism: this is pretty significant.
Iran sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah.

On those 2 points alone, a nuclear Iran is most certainly a "threat" (at least in terms of assessing potential). That seems fair and reasonable regardless of partisanship.

c. So, what about the nukes? Well, even with Iran "threatening" Israel etc. it
is also reasonable to assume, that Iran would not actually use those nukes
on Israel AS LONG AS there is a CREDIBLE THREAT of retliation by the US
or Israel. This is the critical part. A "rational" actor, assuming the state
looking out for state interests, would include survivability of the state.
Thus, any calculation of a "nuclear exchange" has to conclude ASSURED
DESTRUCTION of one state (Iran) and possible damage (extensive) to
another. This is different for US-USSR MAD as US-Iran are not equal
binaries, that is, not necessarily a mutually deterrent pair (yet). This is
also critical as a power asymmetry can produce unstable outcomes. For
example, Iran, most likely does not possess enough nuclear capability to
"deter" a US attack unless the US acceptable loss number is excessively
low. Most likely, Iran can only deliver as far as Israel anyways, or US
forces in Iraq etc. (Israel has a different threat matri and grand strategy
than the US). So, realistically, Iran would not attack the US, maybe Israel
(but a long shot) as to do so, would most certainly invite disaster upon
itself - not in its own interest.

Ok, so what's left?

Proliferation - in my opinion, the greatest and most credible threat. A nuclear capable Iran, can potentially spread nuclear weapons to non-state actors (no way to hold a non-state actor accountable) such as Hamas, Hezbollah and potentially others (assuming al-Qaeda etc). What makes this more "threatening" to the US and allies is the poor relation between the two: US-Iran. Therefore, the Us hold no diplomatic influence over Iran whereas it might hold some influence over say Pakistan or India (obviously this is debatable, but I'm using t for illustrative purposes).

Other reason might include:

The obvious: Nuclear powers would prefer that non-nuclear powers stay non-nuclear.

It's ok for some countries (friends) to be nuclear but not others (not friends)
EX: US treatment of India compared with Pakistan

Bottom line: From a US standpoint - the US has nothing to gain and a lot to lose with a nuclear Iran (not saying who's right or who's wrong, we're just looking at things from a strategic standpoint).

MojoPeiPei is a Political Science/international relations theory student, hopefully he can elaborate on my summary.

jorgelito

Oh yeah - What do I think? I think that Iran should NOT have nuclear weapons.

Elphaba

Jorgelito, what if it isn't about potential nuclear weapons but another more immediate threat? Consider that Iraq intended to switch to petroeuros rather than dollars before the US invasion, and Iran has already set up an international oil trade to be exchanged in petroeuros.

Our government needs to keep it simple for the likes of it's citizens, so the big mushroom cloud will do just fine. We seem to respond to fear mongering quite nicely.

aceventura3

Citizens don't care if foriegn oil trades in euros, yens or dollars. Exchange rates will determine the price consumers pay. Oil companies and oil producing countries hedge against currency fluctuations. Many people (individuals, hedge funds, corps, governments, warren Buffet, etc) make billions trading currencies and currency futures.

If I controlled a tanker of oil I would sell it using the most profitable currency at the time of the sale. However being less of a risk taker today I would hedge at about $70. But it seems for some reason Iran doesn't want to trade in dollars even if it made them more money depending on market conditions.

Conspiricy Theory Alert - If Iran wants to lock everyone into using any currency but American dollars (limiting his choices needlessly) it indicates that Iran doesn't want to get caught with US dollars - which is another indicator Iran may be preparing for war.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

samcol

Citizens might not care, but it does effect them and Iran knows that the dollar is approaching it's intrinsic value (which is literally the paper it's printed on). Gold at 700, oil at 70, prices aren't neccessarily going up so much as the dollar is going down. Foreign countries are ditching the dollar because they no longer want to trade in currency that is being printed at will, and because our country has fewer and fewer assets to offer the rest of the world.

As more countries drop the dollar, our national debt is going to become a serious problem real fast. Maybe that's a more significant reason Iran is seen as a threat, once again it's about oil and money, not nukes.

irateplatypus

it didn't take long because the resemblance is striking. your post was obviously written out of self-consciousness. take away the religious tone and this letter could have been written by any number of "progressives". what a strange sensation it must be to have your own grievances with the Bush administration presented (nearly verbatim) by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

rainheart

Fat effing chance.

I'm combing through initial media reports of the letter in an experiment I'm conducting to see how the media have portrayed the letter.

The problem is that you cannot make an appeal to the American public through the major newsmedia, it is run by contrary interests, plain and simple; see the wikipedia entry about Rupert Murdoch and News Corp for a fairly transparent example.

I've only seen one CBS news article which had the letter at it's disposal, and it basically ignored many of the important points in the letter.

I disagree with Ahmadinejad as a person and as a politician completely, but even with the incorrect intentions, if he called for peace? I wouldn't say that he is wrong. In fact, when people say they want peace, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt- especially in this situation. Because the alternative is pretty damn grim and it costs a lot of lives, and that fact is only exacerbated by the willingness of the Bush administration to use nuclear weapons to win it's war should one occur in Iran. That basically means that it won't just cost Iranian lives, because the rest of the world as a whole will be pushed further into hating what America has come to represent- unilateralism. And that just means more insurgents and terrorists; exactly what the administration failed to take into account before attacking Iraq. Like they say, discretion is the better part of valour.

There you go. "The letter is bullshit because it's written by a fundamentalist muslim; therefore there is no merit in any of the ideas presented in the letter."

I guess we should just nuke the bastards, right? This is what I mean, people are horrible at judging what is in their very own best interests. reconmike, what you are is a latent nationalist- or perhaps even an overt nationalist. You submit that the nation-state in which you reside has precedence over your thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and overall sense of self; and you do this by failing to rationally respond to, for example, this letter.

I agree. What benefit do we derive from putting either the party who Ahmadinejad represents or the party who Bush represents- what benefit do we derive from giving them access to nuclear armaments?? Absolutely none.

The real issue is complete global abolishment of nuclear weapons, because as you say, Ustwo, our survival depends on it. In the extreme long run, the future is just way too unpredictable to allow entrenched political parties to hold such weapons. So, why the double standard then? Get rid of all nuclear weapons. Globally. Permanently.

But surely, even you must submit this is unrealistic. Thus, it is unfair for Iran not to pursue nuclear energy, even if it means it can develop nuclear weapons. Because, quite seriously, it is no less dangerous than the overwhelming partisanship and nationalist rhetoric which dominates the United States today.

=====
But I guess at the end of the day, none of the ideas that are presented matter. At the end of the day, the people who need to listen to these things are not going to listen. They're just going to fabricate some theory as to why others are wrong that compeletly ignores what the presented ideas were about in the first place. This is the logical outcome of ideologies like unilateralist nationalism.


edit:
Oh, and in response to people talking monetary values and currencies- I have to say one thing:

Let's hope alternative currencies can provide better solutions.

aceventura3

Did you know thats actually true for the US penny. The value of the copper in a penny is greater than a penny.

You can't be serious about US paper money. But if you are. Please go to your bank and get as many $100 bills as you can, send them to me, and I will give you the value of the paper in Euros. Deal or No Deal.

If you bought a pound of gold and a barrel of oil 25 years ago and sold them today, your purchasing power would be materially less today than it was then. Now the trick question - does that mean the value of a dollar went down or the value of gold and oil?

Exchange rates go in cycles. Our dollar has been too strong for too long, making imports cheaper and exports more expensive. If the rest of the world lost confidence in the US dollar interest rates would be materially higher than they are. Our current economic policy wants the dollar weaker relative to other currencies. Economic growth in Europe for example pales in comparison to the US economy.

You forgot security. I want economic stability in the world and stable oil prices so I can enjoy life and raise my son. I want him to grow up secure in the world. I want to address the problems in the world now. I don't want to stick my head in the sand and pretend everything is cool when people say they want us dead.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

filtherton

Not at all. Bush's failures are many and obvious, well, obvious to 69% of our country. I imagine the sensation i would feel would be pretty strange if for once a bush supporter actually rebutted criticisms as opposed to attacking the messenger.

smooth

I don't even understand why one would need to take out the religious tone of the letter for it to come from a progessive. I know both leftists and democrats who find themselves to be religious and/or christian.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Elphaba

Only if Bush chooses to read it that way, or more importantly chooses to sell it to us that way.

He is still trying to control us by his fear "policy."

jorgelito

Ah yes, good question - I believe that is an entirely different matter.

One could make a good argument that the US, as a matter of good policy SHOULD be more careful with deficit spending AND also take a serious look into resource dependency in others' hands.

A. Energy and resource dependency

The US need for foreign oil (is it like 20%? I don't know the statistic) could be considered an element in how our grand strategy and foreign policy is shaped.

1. Alternative energy sources as one solution - if the US is less suscestible to the oil market, then the dynamic of international politics and foreign policy changes.

2. Or, release the reserves on to the domestic market. Open up ANWR for drilling, limit environmental restrictions on oil exploitation and processing (gives more incentive for oil producers and refiners to invest in infrastructure). *I don't necessarily advocate this - just showing the options I guess.

B. Deficit spending
I am not very knowledgeable in this area but I will attempt to make an analysis.

1. Swithing to the Euro could potentially cause a lot of problems because the Chinese are major consumers of oil and buy in US dollars. They also hold a lot of US dollars as well. The switch to the Euro COULD cause the Chinese to buy Euros with their dollars to purhcase oil with, especially since they are "in" with Iran. This could conceiveably cause the dollar run people speculate about.

Poppinjay

Thank you for saying that. Some people love good stereotype, and progressives as Godless leaf eaters is still PC enough for people to use it.

But it is a stereotype. A bad one at that.

As to the letter and any resemblance to left leaning American thought, it's so much nonsense when you take into account the scope of Ahmadinejad's other statements, such as the one where he wishes for a real holocaust to happen to Jews. And the rhetoric he preaches that women must be covered head to toe and are not deserving of civil rights.

Yeah, those ideas are so similar to what progressives push.

The real failure (so far) with this letter is the utter lack of response from the US. Sec. Rice's response can easily be interpretted as "nyah nyah I can't hear you.." Karen Hughes, who was put in charge of world diplomacy just for this kind of situation is on vacation and not responding.

So the world looks at this letter and sees some thoughtful rhetoric, despite the fact that it is almost entirely hollow BS, because Ahmadinejad doesn't practice what he preaches. And we say nothing. This is why the Bush adminstration is so pathetic and dysfunctional. They can't get out any sort of coherent message to engage the rest of the world, despite creating a position and hiring Karen Hughes to do just that.

The US has helped a great deal more muslims than Ahmadinejad has, and nobody is mentioning that. I imagine some of the earthquake victims in Pakistan might be aware of it. I wonder if Bush is even aware that his country has sent over millions in aid dollars.

How about responding to the line about our "liberal" values being detrimental to the world. He's talking about liberal values like the right to vote, live, and dress as we please.

Nothing. Nothing from Hughes, or Rice, or Bush.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

irateplatypus

that's really the point.

on one hand you have Ahmadinejad advocating despicable things like those you mentioned (which, i agree, do not sound anything like a typical American liberal). yet, there is no denying that this letter in and of itself (one of the few high-profile communications intended for a western audience) reflects the talking points of the American left. why does Ahmadinejad make such a bold appeal to this audience? what about the American left does he judge suitable for a potential foothold?

Ahmadinejad is nothing if not an ideologue. we can reliably suppose that whatever foreign policy/diplomacy actions he takes it is for the benefit of his ideological agenda (or that of the ayatollahs). between the two major poles of American politicics he has clearly chosen the side of the left with which to garner sympathy. this leaves us with the conclusion that the American right holds the most potential for adversity to his ideology.

knowing what you know about the actual goal/temperment of the Iranian government... would you rather support a foreign policy that is judged to be sympathetic to Ahmadinejad's goals or one that is seen (by Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollahs) to be more antagonistic?

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Jimellow

Yet, our country is the one doing the levelling of other countrys' cities with bombs and missiles.

The Iranian citizens are not in opposition to Iran developing nuclear energy. Iran claims to be interested in developing nuclear energy as an alternative resource, and they are at least 5-10 years away from even being capable of having enough plutonium to fuel a reactor, which would then put them at least an additional 5 years from developing a bomb.

The Iranian "nutballs" are a developing people, like ourselves, and if they have a desire to pursue alternative energy through nuclear development, why shouldn't they be able to?

They may develop a bomb, yes, but they also could develop other means of attack, even if prevented from pursuing nuclear energy. Perhaps we should just wipe their country off the face of the Earth now so that there is absolutely no chance that they will ever threaten America.

Taken this far enough, suddenly we are the country that looks like it shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons; given our propensity to heavily bomb and invade other countries.

I don't see why Iran should be prevented from potential technological and scientific achievements, on the sole basis that they might be able to develop a nuclear bomb 6-10 years from now. Especially when the prevention is coming from those outside their country.

Where does it stop? Education leads to intelligence, that leads to scientists, that could potentially lead to developing weapons of mass destruction. As a result, should America also put it in their best interests to qwell education in the Middle Eastern countries?

If the goal is to eliminate nuclear weapons, and the development of nuclear energy, then that's fine. America, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea can all initiate programs to start deactivating and dissambling their nucelar weapons; but that would be regressing, and thus unacceptable. It's a nice double standard for America to have. We have our nukes, and no one else is allowed to develop any of their own; regardless if such preventions restrict a country from developing into something more.

Lastly, you seem a bit quick to label Iranians "nutballs." I can't say I understand where that is coming from. Just because they are a Middle Eastern country that has views different than our own, they are all "nutballs" that want to destroy America?

__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

Poppinjay

I think certainly should be at odds with his attitude towards non-muslims and women, but I think it's also important to make our case to the world at large. We completely squandered all the good will we had after 9/11 by not communicating our ideas to other nations. That, and well, the whole WMD nonsense.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Nirvana

"Lastly, you seem a bit quick to label Iranians "nutballs." I can't say I understand where that is coming from. Just because they are a Middle Eastern country that has views different than our own, they are all "nutballs" that want to destroy America?'

to be fair, i think he meant people like A, not all iranians.

rainheart

And yet could the same not be said of the Bush Administration? Observe:



In effect both foreign policies are the same- the Bush administration's foreign policy seeks to subdue Iran's development in it's own interests; the Iranian Regime's foreign policy seeks to subdue the U.S. in it's own interests. To ask which one is better is.. basically a trick question.

Enjoy the Star Trek and South Park references, by the way!