You refuse to recognize UN authority, but seem shocked, SHOCKED that others don't.
Iran knows that we are bogged down and are attempting to become a major regional power. They have influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon but don't want Pakistan to be the only Muslim nuclear power.
The only way to deal with Iran is to be consistent, and that means Pakistan which means India and we are unwilling to do either.
that UN is simply being used to convey the wishes of the civilized world. Iran knows that there is real power behind these resolutions as opposed to all other resolutions that only translate into words. What I mean is Iran should understand that the consequences of ignoring US on this issue are much worse than ignoring EU (for example).
Iran knows that we are not bogged down. We can strike them at will to destroy their nuclear capabilities. I think they are operating out of that knowledge and therefor not openly defying us yet. We'll see how much they'll want to test us.
Pakistan and India are done deals but also neither is as rogue a nation as Iran.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Wow. Ok - so we only enforce the rules that we agree with and then act outraged - outraged I tell you! - when other nations refuse to take the UN at face value. If you don't actually want to participate in a collective world organization you can't pretend to be upset when others take the same stance. (Ender, I actually agree that the UN is not a very effective venue for world security issues but the hypocricy of defending the UN while constantly ignoring it just further undermines its effectiveness. And it hasn't done a lot for the US position as global leader either.)
Pakistan isn't a rogue nation? Remind me who their national hero is again? I think you know the drill from here.
And once we deliver our "democracy" to the Pakistanis (instead of propping up our self-serving military dictatorship) they will vote like the rest of the ME - you know, along fundementalist, anti-Israel, anti-US lines.
Its very telling that all of your solutions wind back to escalating the military attack against other "rogue" nations in the ME. Just like the neocons you apparently believe the answer to the problem is to stir up the pot with a little "instability" and then carefully craft a pro-US solution from the charred remains. War is peace, right? Quick question - noticed how thats worked out so far in Iraq and along the Israel/Lebenon front?
If a coach claims he's found the secret to winning games and then proceeds to have the worst season ever you'd fire his butt. Instead, you defend the losses as wins and support even more of the same while all the other teams look on in horror, disbelief and derision. Great job, necons.
I'm going to be impressed if you can define the criteria for what makes a rogue nation that manages to include the bad guys and not us or our close allies.
I advice you to do some careful reading on what we supported in Central Americal before doing so.
And to be clear, I'm not saying we are a rogue nation, just that the term means what the speaker wants it to. In other words, it means nothing.
You can stick your nose up in the air and use your moral equivalence argument, as an excuse for being blind to the realities on the ground. You turn your heart off to the unnecessary death's caused to children by your "right" thinking. You shame those that feel compassion as traitors to the cause of fighting "evil".
When the death is done and over will you be able to turn your heart back on again? Is there a line crossed in battle from with one never returns and remains forever cold, in the quest for seeming to be the strongest of men.
Your complete denial of the realities of the situation, and your complete refusal to even think of anything less than a full blown war I frankly find tinging toward a very dark side of humanity. Your attitude reeks of a self appointed moral superiority, that only "you" understand what is good for "us".
That strength lies only in cold compassionless hearts, that all weakness is appeasement, that those who call for peace in the world are secretly the perpatrators of evil.
I've lurked here long enough to respect the fact that Ender does try to help further a conservative/liberal dialogue so let me ask this question which has bugged me for awhile:
Conservatives tend to see most (if not all) topics in terms of moral absolutes/black vs. white/right vs. wrong. And I don't necessarily think that that is always a bad or incorrect standpoint. But...the definition of rogue states and the behavior of the US for the past 50 years in many countries seems to be a contradiction of these conservative values. We have policies built on moral absolutes (defeating "terrorists") which rely on very relative (and constantly changing) policies (Iran is a rogue nation, Pakistan is not. Yet Pakistan has committed more of the crimes we use to define rogue nation status. Iraq was great in the 80's but a rogue nation by 2000 while changing little of its actual behavior. Democratic regimes are great - except in Chile - and death squad backed dictatorships are bad - except for the ones trained and supported by the US in El Salvador and Nicaragua).
How do conservatives reconcile such amoral policy decisions and does not the mess we are witnessing today reflect at least some of the falicies of such a viewpoint?
how that is a response to what I said. You like to turn responses to my comments into some serious metaphysical dissertations on my lack of compassion and desire for war. Nothing can be further from the truth. We have different understanding of compassion and our values of what is good and evil are also very far apart. I believe in battling evil in the spirit of "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" meaning I do not believe in turning the other cheek to our enemies who kill us. That has nothing to do with compassion. It has a lot to do with common sense and a desire to see our country safe.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Wow. Ok - so we only enforce the rules that we agree with and then act outraged - outraged I tell you! - when other nations refuse to take the UN at face value. If you don't actually want to participate in a collective world organization you can't pretend to be upset when others take the samestance.
It's not about refusing to take the UN at face value. I think I expressed it somewhat clearly in that most perceptive countries know to look beyond the actual UN front at the players behind the various UN resolutions and their motivations. When Iran will reject the latest UN resolution, it will be with full knowledge of rejecting an agreement between US, Russia, China, France and England, with some serious repercussions behind that agreement, and not some worthless UN document.
Pakistan isn't a rogue nation? Remind me who their national hero is again? I think you know the drill from here.
It's all about the government and who they support. Pakistani government has been moderately helpful in our war and has no desire in supporting anti-US terror groups.
And once we deliver our "democracy" to the Pakistanis (instead of propping up our self-serving military dictatorship) they will vote like the rest of the ME - you know, along fundementalist, anti-Israel, anti-US lines.
I actually disagree with the Bush admin approach on forcing democracy on the nations that are not ready for it. Pakistan might not be ready for it yet. Instilling respect for individual rights while supporting the nation's economic development would probably be a better approach.
Its very telling that all of your solutions wind back to escalating the military attack against other "rogue" nations in the ME. Just like the neocons you apparently believe the answer to the problem is to stir up the pot with a little "instability" and then carefully craft a pro-US solution from the charred remains. War is peace, right? Quick question - noticed how thats worked out so far in Iraq and along the Israel/Lebenon front?
I don't necessarily agree with the Bush war strategy. And this characterization of what I believe is not accurate. As for Israel/Hezbollah situation, that is far from over... Jeez, it's only been what, 18 days? Liberals are so quick to declare defeats, it's almost like you are rooting for em.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
There could be a ceasefire. Yet you advocate for war.
There could be an end to this senseless violence, yet you accuse anyone who does not relish the deaths of children on either side, as being weak appeasers to the war on evil.
I am sorry but I will never see compassion in the terms you do. Compassion is strength not weakness.
And it is so sad that in a failure of imagination that your only answer compassion is appeasement. I am sorry to say, that that ideology is an ideology that I find enormously frightening, and turns you into that which you seek to fight.
And that is a position which I have absolutely no respect for.
I do not see this violence as senseless. That's the crux of it. I also never stated that "compassion" = "appeasement".
In any case I got your points, I disagreed with them, whatever. I am not compassionate. I have no compassion for terrorists and want them all blown up in the worst possible manner. End of story.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
There is another way of ending terrorism besides killing everything that moves. Yet you refuse to acknowledge even the remostest possibilitiy of such. So I take it that you value the life of an Israeli child over the life of one born in Lebanon.
And your blanket labeling of who is and is not a terrorists (which I am sure you see as Liberal Ed 101) is a dangerous mindset. The glorified "we'' that you speak of with such holiness is much less than that. "We" will not negotiate. "We" will not seek a ceasfire. "We" say compassion is appeasement.
The day you call upon the people of the United States to agree that compassion is appeasement, is a sad sad day indeed. And you have already made the call.
Pakistani government has been moderately helpful in our war and has no desire in supporting anti-US terror groups.
Really - let's see:
thanks to Mr. Kahn the North Koreans and the Iranians (and quite possibly the Syrians) are all working on developing WMD capabilities. In a master-stroke of unrivaled proportions Pakistan has enabled the "Axis of Evil" to potentially rival any regional coalition we could possibly put together. (And lots not forget this started under that darling of conservitive ideology, Mr. Reagan).
Pakistan has been a lot of help with the Osama Bin Laden thing - just helpful in his direction by actively interferring in any attempts to actually locate him on the Afghan/Pakistan border. But its just Osama Bin Forgotten so why would conservatives care about his whereabouts?
On the other hand, I do agree with your assessment concerning the enforcement of democracy. Individual rights and economic development (which often coincide) seems to be the only historically relevent approach. Unfortunately, its very slow and often quite messy along the way. Not good for national election slogans and such...
Finally, you may claim that the Israel/Lebenon thing is far from over but the ME has already made up its mind. Unless Israel takes a very drastic military measure to cripple Hezbollah in S. Lebanon the "street" in the ME will read this as a victory for the Lebanese people. Thanks to the crapfest that's current US foreign policy almost all of our ME allies(Saudia Arabia) and some pro-US regimes (the democratically elected Lebanese government) have slide into the pro-Hezbelloh camp.
I do not disagree with the grime but sadly true assessment that violence does produce change. But war must be followed by (in Iraq) or accompanied by (in Israel) something constructive to have a positive impact. In both cases that has been clearly lacking and both - I think - will eventually be written up as colossal mistakes.
Quick question - how do I do that block quote thingie. I can't find any buttons or stuff...? Your formatting skills shame me...:(
I've read through the comments and did not see where specific alternative solutions had been discussed yet.
If you could have your way, how exactly would you address the Iran problem?
Some options to get the ball rolling:
(a) Let Tehran develop a bomb and live with the consequences, like we do with the funnyman in North Korea and with the unstable regime in Pakistan, and doubtless other questionable states at some point in the future
(b) Continue to insist they desist, and back up our insistance with overt action if necessary, even if that action might adversly affect world oil prices and our way of life. Action could range from isolation to war, as choosing the "action" path does imply that consequences will be imposed to the degree necessary to get them to desist.
(c) Covert actions of various interesting types
(d) What else?
Discussing specifics is helpful when dealing with such difficult issues.
I simply cannot imagine long term success on this issue while not just ignoring, but enabling Pakistan and India.
We have made it in our enemies best interest to develop nuclear weapons and Iran, who used to be facing off with Iraq now seems to want military parity with their neighbor to the East.
Personally, I'd suggest starting by setting dues at the U.N. to be modified based on one's status under the non-proliferation treaty (at least then 'rogue nation' could have some meaning) and we could get away from the hypocracy charge associated with having an immense arsenal.
Comments :
You know your answer already so why ask
WWlll. Ready. Aim. Fire. Blam.
What could be more obvious?
It IS the only solution for fighting
Evil in this world. Right. Blam!
Evil will destroy our way of life!
To those who say otherwise,
They are the Liberal Left, the Haters of America
There can be no other "right" answer, if we are
indeed fighting evil.
Absolutism and The Moral Authority of Good vs Evil
Who can oppose evil?
I'm only half stupid
life is hard
when you inhabit the reality-based community :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Supporting the UN a la Iraq in 2003
So now we must use force against countries that fail to respond to UN resolutions?
Fine - let's set an example and start with the country with the most violations...that would be....oh, Israel.
Oops, moving on...
How dare you speak the truth!
Don't you know that war is the ONLY answer.
I'm only half stupid
Your community is reality based?
I think Francis Fukuyama would disagree! Does he too hate America?
I'm only half stupid
Bah!
You refuse to recognize UN authority, but seem shocked, SHOCKED that others don't.
Iran knows that we are bogged down and are attempting to become a major regional power. They have influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon but don't want Pakistan to be the only Muslim nuclear power.
The only way to deal with Iran is to be consistent, and that means Pakistan which means India and we are unwilling to do either.
so concise and well put
I'm only half stupid
heh we all know
that UN is simply being used to convey the wishes of the civilized world. Iran knows that there is real power behind these resolutions as opposed to all other resolutions that only translate into words. What I mean is Iran should understand that the consequences of ignoring US on this issue are much worse than ignoring EU (for example).
Iran knows that we are not bogged down. We can strike them at will to destroy their nuclear capabilities. I think they are operating out of that knowledge and therefor not openly defying us yet. We'll see how much they'll want to test us.
Pakistan and India are done deals but also neither is as rogue a nation as Iran.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
there is no
moral equivalence. We act in our own best interest and not in the best interest of the collective wisdom of united dictatorships of our planet.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Reality based community?
Wow. Ok - so we only enforce the rules that we agree with and then act outraged - outraged I tell you! - when other nations refuse to take the UN at face value. If you don't actually want to participate in a collective world organization you can't pretend to be upset when others take the same stance. (Ender, I actually agree that the UN is not a very effective venue for world security issues but the hypocricy of defending the UN while constantly ignoring it just further undermines its effectiveness. And it hasn't done a lot for the US position as global leader either.)
Pakistan isn't a rogue nation? Remind me who their national hero is again? I think you know the drill from here.
And once we deliver our "democracy" to the Pakistanis (instead of propping up our self-serving military dictatorship) they will vote like the rest of the ME - you know, along fundementalist, anti-Israel, anti-US lines.
Its very telling that all of your solutions wind back to escalating the military attack against other "rogue" nations in the ME. Just like the neocons you apparently believe the answer to the problem is to stir up the pot with a little "instability" and then carefully craft a pro-US solution from the charred remains. War is peace, right? Quick question - noticed how thats worked out so far in Iraq and along the Israel/Lebenon front?
If a coach claims he's found the secret to winning games and then proceeds to have the worst season ever you'd fire his butt. Instead, you defend the losses as wins and support even more of the same while all the other teams look on in horror, disbelief and derision. Great job, necons.
Define rogue nation
I'm going to be impressed if you can define the criteria for what makes a rogue nation that manages to include the bad guys and not us or our close allies.
I advice you to do some careful reading on what we supported in Central Americal before doing so.
And to be clear, I'm not saying we are a rogue nation, just that the term means what the speaker wants it to. In other words, it means nothing.
"We" who
You can stick your nose up in the air and use your moral equivalence argument, as an excuse for being blind to the realities on the ground. You turn your heart off to the unnecessary death's caused to children by your "right" thinking. You shame those that feel compassion as traitors to the cause of fighting "evil".
When the death is done and over will you be able to turn your heart back on again? Is there a line crossed in battle from with one never returns and remains forever cold, in the quest for seeming to be the strongest of men.
Your complete denial of the realities of the situation, and your complete refusal to even think of anything less than a full blown war I frankly find tinging toward a very dark side of humanity. Your attitude reeks of a self appointed moral superiority, that only "you" understand what is good for "us".
That strength lies only in cold compassionless hearts, that all weakness is appeasement, that those who call for peace in the world are secretly the perpatrators of evil.
Frankly sir, You do Not Speak for Me.
I'm only half stupid
Great Point and a question
Absolutely on target -
I've lurked here long enough to respect the fact that Ender does try to help further a conservative/liberal dialogue so let me ask this question which has bugged me for awhile:
Conservatives tend to see most (if not all) topics in terms of moral absolutes/black vs. white/right vs. wrong. And I don't necessarily think that that is always a bad or incorrect standpoint. But...the definition of rogue states and the behavior of the US for the past 50 years in many countries seems to be a contradiction of these conservative values. We have policies built on moral absolutes (defeating "terrorists") which rely on very relative (and constantly changing) policies (Iran is a rogue nation, Pakistan is not. Yet Pakistan has committed more of the crimes we use to define rogue nation status. Iraq was great in the 80's but a rogue nation by 2000 while changing little of its actual behavior. Democratic regimes are great - except in Chile - and death squad backed dictatorships are bad - except for the ones trained and supported by the US in El Salvador and Nicaragua).
How do conservatives reconcile such amoral policy decisions and does not the mess we are witnessing today reflect at least some of the falicies of such a viewpoint?
I am not sure
how that is a response to what I said. You like to turn responses to my comments into some serious metaphysical dissertations on my lack of compassion and desire for war. Nothing can be further from the truth. We have different understanding of compassion and our values of what is good and evil are also very far apart. I believe in battling evil in the spirit of "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" meaning I do not believe in turning the other cheek to our enemies who kill us. That has nothing to do with compassion. It has a lot to do with common sense and a desire to see our country safe.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
hmmm
It's not about refusing to take the UN at face value. I think I expressed it somewhat clearly in that most perceptive countries know to look beyond the actual UN front at the players behind the various UN resolutions and their motivations. When Iran will reject the latest UN resolution, it will be with full knowledge of rejecting an agreement between US, Russia, China, France and England, with some serious repercussions behind that agreement, and not some worthless UN document.
It's all about the government and who they support. Pakistani government has been moderately helpful in our war and has no desire in supporting anti-US terror groups.
I actually disagree with the Bush admin approach on forcing democracy on the nations that are not ready for it. Pakistan might not be ready for it yet. Instilling respect for individual rights while supporting the nation's economic development would probably be a better approach.
I don't necessarily agree with the Bush war strategy. And this characterization of what I believe is not accurate. As for Israel/Hezbollah situation, that is far from over... Jeez, it's only been what, 18 days? Liberals are so quick to declare defeats, it's almost like you are rooting for em.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You refuse to see reality.
There could be a ceasefire. Yet you advocate for war.
There could be an end to this senseless violence, yet you accuse anyone who does not relish the deaths of children on either side, as being weak appeasers to the war on evil.
I am sorry but I will never see compassion in the terms you do. Compassion is strength not weakness.
And it is so sad that in a failure of imagination that your only answer compassion is appeasement. I am sorry to say, that that ideology is an ideology that I find enormously frightening, and turns you into that which you seek to fight.
And that is a position which I have absolutely no respect for.
I'm only half stupid
the difference is
I do not see this violence as senseless. That's the crux of it. I also never stated that "compassion" = "appeasement".
In any case I got your points, I disagreed with them, whatever. I am not compassionate. I have no compassion for terrorists and want them all blown up in the worst possible manner. End of story.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
the moral equivalence
argument is most disturbing when.
There is another way of ending terrorism besides killing everything that moves. Yet you refuse to acknowledge even the remostest possibilitiy of such. So I take it that you value the life of an Israeli child over the life of one born in Lebanon.
And your blanket labeling of who is and is not a terrorists (which I am sure you see as Liberal Ed 101) is a dangerous mindset. The glorified "we'' that you speak of with such holiness is much less than that. "We" will not negotiate. "We" will not seek a ceasfire. "We" say compassion is appeasement.
The day you call upon the people of the United States to agree that compassion is appeasement, is a sad sad day indeed. And you have already made the call.
I'm only half stupid
Worse possible manner?
want them all blown up in the worst possible manner
Why? Isn't stopping them effectively enough? Why do you care how badly they die?
End of Story
This is how we ended up in Iraq.
With your end of story thinking.
The US troops,
with whom your party has wrapped
the flag around at every opportunity
for mere political expedience.
Oops, I forgot no compassion.
Sorry troops. You got used as
political pawns in the broader
war on terror, which is now
being fought by proxy in
Israel. They really meant
to send you to Iran in the name
of Israel. Would you still
have volunteered, knowing what
you know now>
I'm only half stupid
Define "helpful"
Pakistani government has been moderately helpful in our war and has no desire in supporting anti-US terror groups.
Really - let's see:
thanks to Mr. Kahn the North Koreans and the Iranians (and quite possibly the Syrians) are all working on developing WMD capabilities. In a master-stroke of unrivaled proportions Pakistan has enabled the "Axis of Evil" to potentially rival any regional coalition we could possibly put together. (And lots not forget this started under that darling of conservitive ideology, Mr. Reagan).
Pakistan has been a lot of help with the Osama Bin Laden thing - just helpful in his direction by actively interferring in any attempts to actually locate him on the Afghan/Pakistan border. But its just Osama Bin Forgotten so why would conservatives care about his whereabouts?
On the other hand, I do agree with your assessment concerning the enforcement of democracy. Individual rights and economic development (which often coincide) seems to be the only historically relevent approach. Unfortunately, its very slow and often quite messy along the way. Not good for national election slogans and such...
Finally, you may claim that the Israel/Lebenon thing is far from over but the ME has already made up its mind. Unless Israel takes a very drastic military measure to cripple Hezbollah in S. Lebanon the "street" in the ME will read this as a victory for the Lebanese people. Thanks to the crapfest that's current US foreign policy almost all of our ME allies(Saudia Arabia) and some pro-US regimes (the democratically elected Lebanese government) have slide into the pro-Hezbelloh camp.
I do not disagree with the grime but sadly true assessment that violence does produce change. But war must be followed by (in Iraq) or accompanied by (in Israel) something constructive to have a positive impact. In both cases that has been clearly lacking and both - I think - will eventually be written up as colossal mistakes.
Quick question - how do I do that block quote thingie. I can't find any buttons or stuff...? Your formatting skills shame me...:(
Just think
How much democracy we could have fostered with 1/10th the money we spent on Iraq had it been spent on water, roads etc.
To blockquote type
<blockquote>
then when you want to type
</blockquote>
and you get
the symbolism for chaos in Iraq???
I'm only half stupid
you really need to stop this
garbage about Israel. I am done talking to you.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Could you clarify please?
Not sure I understand your comment.
My first comment was related to his
Individual rights and economic development (which often coincide) seems to be the only historically relevent approach
and was noting that foreign aid is a much less expensive way to foster democracy and then went on to answer his question on how to blockquote.
Joking about this
as symbolism for democracy in Iraq...... as in chaos..
and you get
then when you want to type
I'm only half stupid
is the blockquote broken
or is it just me? It must be me!
I'm only half stupid
nah, It's repeated
I put what you use, and then, below, what it would look like
heh
so basically you use
<-blockquote-> to start and to end... without all those -'s
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
another try
<-/-blockquote-> to end
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
My XML-Kung Fu cannot be defeated
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
pretty close
that's the best so far :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So the Solution Is?
I've read through the comments and did not see where specific alternative solutions had been discussed yet.
If you could have your way, how exactly would you address the Iran problem?
Some options to get the ball rolling:
(a) Let Tehran develop a bomb and live with the consequences, like we do with the funnyman in North Korea and with the unstable regime in Pakistan, and doubtless other questionable states at some point in the future
(b) Continue to insist they desist, and back up our insistance with overt action if necessary, even if that action might adversly affect world oil prices and our way of life. Action could range from isolation to war, as choosing the "action" path does imply that consequences will be imposed to the degree necessary to get them to desist.
(c) Covert actions of various interesting types
(d) What else?
Discussing specifics is helpful when dealing with such difficult issues.
Consistency would be a good first step.
I simply cannot imagine long term success on this issue while not just ignoring, but enabling Pakistan and India.
We have made it in our enemies best interest to develop nuclear weapons and Iran, who used to be facing off with Iraq now seems to want military parity with their neighbor to the East.
Personally, I'd suggest starting by setting dues at the U.N. to be modified based on one's status under the non-proliferation treaty (at least then 'rogue nation' could have some meaning) and we could get away from the hypocracy charge associated with having an immense arsenal.