Yes your nutters are leaders of churches not heads of state – but people like McCain openly seek their endorsement as they probably correctly see their approval (and policies that lead to that approval) as vital for election – so in practical terms, their influence over foreign policy is very similar to their Islamic opposite numbers. Are your/our nutters preferable to theirs? – well maybe, but at least the influence they have on my day to day life (and yours) is considerably greater – and the indications are that this interference will only increase unless someone makes a stand for a rational society.

We can have some say in that, while there is little we can do to influence public policy in Iran apart from denouncing calls for pre-emptive strikes (either nuclear or like in Iraq the use of cluster bombs to ‘shock and awe’ civilians into liking our way of thinking more) – if we do so, at least there is less pressure for those in control of Iran to escalate the arms race in the region. The fact remains is that while McCain thinks it is a funny idea, bombing Iran will make the situation much, much worse and you might wonder when perhaps the next President openly has breakfast meetings with nutters like John Hagee, where the idea came from in the first place.

Don’t ever read much into what candidates say in the primary elections in the US.  If you’re a candidate for president, your first goal is to get the nomination.  Getting the nomination typically means getting in bed with powerful groups within your party.  If you’re a Democrat, this means appealing to the wacko left; if a Republican, the religious right.  Candidates typically tack to the fringes during the primaries, then rush to the center during the general election.

And I’ll say it again.  In the US religious fundamentalists have the ear of some of the advisers to the president; the president weighs what they have to say along with what other non-religious right inclined advisers have to say, and makes a decision.  (Many people here believe Dick Cheney is really in charge, and he’s never been accused of being in bed with the religious right as has Bush.)  In Iran the fundamentalists run the government–they are the decision makers.  And no one in power in the US is going to risk killing hundreds of thousands of people in this country to attack Iran whereas I’m not so sure that the Iranian leaders wouldn’t gladly sacrifice several hundred thousand to strike a blow at the Great Satan for the greater glory of Allah.

But again you are missing the point. The article you referenced points out that we have never learnt from history – in fact the parallels to the history we are currently repeating are scary in themselves. We have not learnt those lessons because the strongest influences on US Middle Eastern policy come from the Christian religious right who see merit in inflaming the situation to pursue what to them is the glory of Armageddon. These are the same people who strenuously oppose any ‘road map’ for peace. These are the same people who whip up your citizens into righteous calls for pre-emptive strikes against (particularly) Iran – and publish best selling books (check out the number 2 on Amazon right now) calling for this course of action.

I was watching the TV version of Richard Dawkins latest works which is belatedly being shown here as well as a locally made protrayal of the power of fundamentalists in your country. Both Islamic and Christian nutters were interviewed – both calling for the death and destruction of the others (the Americans openly canvassing the idea of a nuclear strike against Iran). It really is too hard to decide which message is more chilling … but as I say, it is (as you guys say) a “no brainer” why the Iranians are seeking greater firepower to defend themselves.

I can’t help but repeat myself.  We’ve got nutters calling for the death and destruction of them – they’ve got nutters (probably more than we; and their nutters hold jobs as heads of state whereas ours are heads of churches–a big difference) calling for our death and destruction.  We’ve had The Bomb for over 60 years and have never used it other than in WW II.  We don’t know what they will do. But we can get a clue based on their past behavior.

Here is another interesting article on the subject with a different viewpoint than the last one I linked to.  It contains the following quote from Bernard Lewis, a Princeton professor and probably the world’s expert on Islam:

MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran’s leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights.

Here is what the Ayatolla Khomeini had to say about love of country:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

Yep, I’d much prefer our nutters to theirs.  And you should know better than to draw conclusions about a country from a television special. Especially one showing Richard Dawkin’s view of the world; it’s in his best interest to show the absolute worst in American religious behavior.  If I got all my information from TV, I would assume all Australian wrestled alligators regularly.

Cheers–

MRE 

Anyway getting back to the discussion – again, trying to see this from the Iranian perspective, I think saying “what have we done to Iran since 1953?” and then remembering but rather dismissing the role your country (and the West generally) had in supporting and/or ignoring the diabolical nature of the Iraqi war against Iran (and the Kurds) rather illuminates my point that the situation whilst undoubtedly hard will only get worse if ‘we’ don’t even try to see how ‘our’ actions are perceived.

You say your country has a great record with nuclear weapons – well (a) from what I understand from the participants on both sides of the Cold War – there was great deal of luck involved (I think it was McNamara who recently addressed how often and how close things came during the Cuban crisis) (b) during all that time the US has not been attacked on its home soil (as many other countries have been – including Iran) – do you really think such supposedly admirable restraint would have been exercised if your homeland had been attacked? – and (c) again from just about anyone else’s perspective, if we extend the timeline just a little more they/we could say that you are the only country to actually use nuclear weapons at all – and again in circumstances where had history been different (and the Allies had lost) – those responsible would (again I think in McNamara’s words) been open to war crimes charges.

Don’t get me wrong – I’d rather no countries had nuclear weapons – we certainly don’t need more, but bombing Iran might slow their short term goal of acquiring this capability (if they really are serious in this goal … remember who is telling us that they are , right?) but it will undoubtedly only steel their resolve (if it exists) to do so later, make terrorist attacks certain, and the deranged McCain ‘joke’ on top of the ‘success’ of the Cold War MAD deterrent theory will no be used as a further excuse for them to proceed down this path.

Sitting down to talk and walk more than a few miles in ‘their’ shoes sounds like a much more productive way to proceed in my view – and shouldn’t be dismissed (again) quite so soon after the folly of doing so in Iran has been graphically demonstrated.

Hi Malcolm–

Since the Iranians had taken over our embassy and held the staff hostage for months and lined up and executed thousands of their own pro-American citizens, it seems unlikely that we (the US) would have taken Iran’s side in the Iran/Iraq war.

I don’t think our restraint in using The Bomb was a matter of luck irrespective of McNamara’s commentary.  And, in case you’ve forgotten, we were attacked on our homeland on 9/11/2001.  We knew where the perpetrators came from, yet we didn’t immediately (nor have we yet) dropped a nuclear bomb on the area.  So I disagree that it’s just been sheer luck and not restraint and judgment on our side in not using nuclear weapons.

I read an interesting piece a few days ago that has maybe changed my thinking about the entire Middle East.  Maybe what they need is a good, solid ignoring.  But it’s hard to do when I read of crackdowns and brutal physical attacks (by the police, no less) on women who have the audacity to go around unveiled.   Call me uncaring and unenlightened if you want, but I don’t really want to walk a mile in their miserable, stupid, fundamentalist, misogynist, sadistic shoes.

Cheers–

MRE 

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/02/rumsfeld-saddam.jpgpf8qfo.jpg

This picture noting the warm political (and probable arms) support of the Saddam regime during the Iraq – Iran war might still be a bone of contention with some Iranians don’t you think?

I have no doubt that it is a bone of contention with many Iranians.  But the Iraq-Iran war wasn’t our doing; we simply sided with the side that hadn’t recently attacked our embassy and held our citizens hostage.

I’m not saying that the Iranians don’t have some legitimate beefs with the U.S., just as we do with them.  Problem is, I’m not so sure that they would be as responsible with The Bomb as we have proven to be for the last 60+ years.  Our citizens have bought into the ‘pursuit of happiness’ lifestyle of a mostly secular nation; theirs have bought into a fundamentalist, cleric-run government that believes in doing whatever is necessary to rid the world of the Great Satan, even if it means that the majority of the citizens would be immolated in the process.  It’s a different set of core beliefs, and I, for one, would rather see The Bomb in the hands of those with our core beliefs than theirs.

You can tell me all you want about all the people in Iran who are really secular and who don’t believe in all the cleric-run fundamentalist Islamic BS, and those people may exist, but at this point they aren’t in charge.  And remember, it was the students – which are typically the MOST liberal faction of society, the group most wanting an expansion of freedoms – who took over the embassy and were a primary force in the establishment of the fundamentalist, cleric-based government.  If you can’t count on your students to see through all this nonsense, then I don’t think you can count on the rank and file citizens.

Cheers–

MRE 

A small note on the story of the Saudi man striking his wife – whilst I can totally sympathise with wanting to give him a taste of his own medicine, such action could be disastrous for the woman involved. He may well blame her for causing him to be struck (as abusers often do) and take it out on her in private. She may well believe she deserved to be struck (she will have been indoctrinated as well) and feel anger towards her would be ‘rescuer’. Bottom line, the society he lives in permits this behaviour and nothing short of an overhaul of those laws will stop it occurring.

But please consider the following from an officer in the U.S. Army. I consider it emblematic of the Christian fundamentals among us, and I find it disgraceful and un-American. There is no excuse for this, and furthermore I find it un-Christian! (Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=tillmanpart1 )

“Kauzlarich, now a battalion commanding officer at Fort Riley in Kansas, further suggested the Tillman family’s unhappiness with the findings of past investigations might be because of the absence of a Christian faith in their lives.

“In an interview with ESPN.com, Kauzlarich said: “When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don’t believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more — that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don’t know how an atheist thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough.”

“Asked by ESPN.com whether the Tillmans’ religious beliefs are a factor in the ongoing investigation, Kauzlarich said, “I think so. There is not a whole lot of trust in the system or faith in the system [by the Tillmans]. So that is my personal opinion, knowing what I know.”

“Asked what might finally placate the family, Kauzlarich said, “You know what? I don’t think anything will make them happy, quite honestly. I don’t know. Maybe they want to see somebody’s head on a platter. But will that really make them happy? No, because they can’t bring their son back.”

“Kauzlarich, now 40, was the Ranger regiment executive officer in Afghanistan, who played a role in writing the recommendation for Tillman’s posthumous Silver Star. And finally, with his fingerprints already all over many of the hot-button issues, including the question of who ordered the platoon to be split as it dragged a disabled Humvee through the mountains, Kauzlarich conducted the first official Army investigation into Tillman’s death.

“That investigation is among the inquiries that didn’t satisfy the Tillman family.

“”Well, this guy makes disparaging remarks about the fact that we’re not Christians, and the reason that we can’t put Pat to rest is because we’re not Christians,” Mary Tillman, Pat’s mother, said in an interview with ESPN.com. Mary Tillman casts the family as spiritual, though she said it does not believe in many of the fundamental aspects of organized religion.

“”Oh, it has nothing to do with the fact that this whole thing is shady,” she said sarcastically, “But it is because we are not Christians.”

“After a pause, her voice full with emotion, she added, “Pat may not have been what you call a Christian. He was about the best person I ever knew. I mean, he was just a good guy. He didn’t lie. He was very honest. He was very generous. He was very humble. I mean, he had an ego, but it was a healthy ego. It is like, everything those [people] are, he wasn’t.”"

That’s for starters, Mike. Because I don’t consider your blog the appropriate venue for a full-blown exposé about “our” fundamentalists, I won’t mention any names of the stateside leaders and the great injustices they perpetrate in the name of God. But let it be said here that “our” fundamentalists are not our friends either. They may not go around cutting off hands, but they are very much involved in matters of life and death.

Hi Gary–

I had read the piece about Tillman somewhere else and was disgusted. Plus I had two different friends who were as disgusted call me to tell me about it.  That commanding officer should be disciplined for those totally inappropriate remarks.  The part of this whole scenario that troubles me the most–not this particular interview, but the Tillman situation–is the amount of publicity it has garnered because Tillman was an NFL football player.  Are any of the other lives lost in the same questionable circumstances in Afghanistan (or Iraq or anywhere, for that matter) less valuable because they happened to not be professional athletes.  What Tillman did in giving up a multi million dollar career to fight for something he believed in was more than commendable, but is his life more valuable than someone else who signed up for all the same reasons?

Another thing that annoys me to no end is all these athletes who, when interviewed after they win some kind of competition, make these remarks about giving all the credit to God or Jesus.  First, if there is a God and/or if Jesus really is who they believe he is, do they really think He gives a rat’s ass about who wins a football game?  What I’m waiting to see is the player who after a defeat says something along the lines of: ‘ Well, God’s responsible for this one.  God must have favored the other team today.  We put all our faith in Him and He flat out let us down.’  It’s only right; if God’s going to get all the glory for a victory, He should get the blame for defeat.

Cheers–

MRE 

This article published yesterday suggests that examining carefully the motivation of your ‘enemy’ would be more productive than any pre-emptive attack – which for whatever the perceived short term gain would (like the Iraqi ‘solution’) make us all much less safe for decades.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/ross-gittins/why-never-again-will-never-work/2007/04/24/1177180648141.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Don’t forget also that if you are scared now, so are ‘they’(for good reason), and part of that fear in both countries is being fueled by those who benefit from directing attention away from more pressing deficiencies at home (we call them politicians). Remember we were told last time about WMD – no doubt the same people are our source of ‘information’ now.

McCain said today as he launched his presidential bid (how that is still a possibility after his karaoke act defies belief);

“…the country should never undertake a war without a comprehensive plan for success”

Let’s hope he really means that, and that someone … anyone … explains how bombing Iran could conceivably be part of such a plan.

Hi Malcolm–

Interesting article–thanks for the link.

We helped a secular faction in Iran overthrow the government in 1953 (I think) and installed the Shah.  We supported the Shah (sort of) until he was run out of town in 1979.  Our embassy employees were taken hostage i 1979 and released in 1980 the day before Reagan took office.  (I think it was the day before, I can’t remember exactly, but it was close.)  We wouldn’t even allow the Shah to come back here to the US to die–we allowed him to come into the country for treatment, then we sent him on his way to die elsewhere.

Other than a little sabre rattling here and there, what have we done to Iran since 1953?  Even in 1953 it was with the help of the secular Iranians, so it wasn’t like we invaded.  We’ve had The Bomb for 60+ years and haven’t used it since the waning days of WW II, so I think we have a history of using nuclear weapons responsibly.  The Iranians, on the other hand, have taken over our embassy,abused the staff, kept them imprisoned, and, in general, acted irresponsibly.  I, for one, would not like to see nuclear weapons in their hands.  Problem is, even if I did have the power to make the call as to what to do, I don’t know what, if anything, I would do.

It’s a tough situation. 

Doesn’t that remind you of other kinds of debates here where logical thinking is countered with dogma?

Indeed it does.

Cheers–

MRE 

If the majority of outside opinion should be the standard as Lori suggests, then we should immediately end the death penalty, particularly for juveniles tried as adults. The entire rest of the OECD countries view it as barbaric in general, and simply depraved that we would execute mentally challenged minors. Yep. It’s true.

However, most Americans (blood thirsty lot we are) are in favor of the death penalty, even citing old testament (when there’s new testament to the contrary and we are supposedly a New Testament country). Will we allow a set of morals that proclaim our practice to be morally untenable to dictate our policy? And when your readers say no, think really hard about this as if you were a Saudi and had the entire OECD chiming at you about punching women in the face, beheading adulterers, and cutting hands of thieves.

I’m not suggesting that we should say it’s okay to punch a woman in the face from a cultural perspective (frankly, I’d rather end the death penalty which I unlike all 9 members of the Supreme Court, am pretty European about). But I would suggest that we be VERY careful before saying “Well most of the world thinks X, so X must be right.”

Another thing that most of the civilized world does from a cultural value system that we don’t:
Universal health care (in fact, we’re the only OECD country not to have a universal health care).

Now, before folks poop on that idea as being somehow weak, european, softheaded, etc, think back with your Saudi Male mind to how a bunch of Americans saying “Stop hitting your women in the face” sounds. Weak, western, softheaded, etc.

Last, because I’m solutions oriented: Saudi Royal family has done a poor job in raising all the camels (the ships of desert) of Arabian society. Maybe a change, say the installation of a government that can handle a single export commodity economy in the interest of all Arabians (sorry this sounds like socialism) might promote a middle class and that’s usually the most important piece in the developing of liberal values (like the non-ownership-of-other-people and the not-punching-women-in-the-face-or-anywhere-else-anymore types of things).

Sigh. I didn’t even talk about how late the US dumped the ownership of other people relative to all other “civilized” countries. Yeah, that was wrong too. But, in 1850, it was prime right and F Europe for thinking any differently.

Hi Max–

I’m only going to take issue with one thing you wrote.  I think the idea of universal health care sucks.  Compare the number of people flying out of the United States to get their health care to the number of people flying in to get their health care.  And most of those flying in are from countries that do have universal health care.

What ends up happening is that a two tiered health care system evolves.  One for those who are willing to pay; one for those who aren’t.  That system pretty much exists here already right now.  I’ve spent enough hours working in emergency rooms to know that ERs (despite what you see on TV shows) are pretty much free care centers for a whole lot of people.  If you have something wrong with you, and you can’t afford a trip to the doctor, go to an ER.  You can’t be refused treatment.  TV would have us all believe that ERs are places where life and death emergencies are happening all the time.  I’ve worked in them way too long to know that.  Most of the stuff is colds, women with urinary tract infections, sore throats, the occasional strain or sprain, minor cuts, with the occasional big deal that hits the door.  People come to the ER with all these petty complaints because they don’t want to have to pay to go to the doctor, and don’t have to if they go to an ER.

Spend some time talking to some people who live in countries that have universal health care before you buy into it totally.

Cheers–

MRE 

Hi Gary–

I would be happy to see them strongly rebutted as well.  But, as much havoc as they wreak, they don’t go around cutting hands off for stealing, caning their wives publicly and with church approval for misbehaving,  and they don’t lop off heads for adultery and other offenses we don’t much bat an eye at.  Islamic fundamentalists do all this and worse.  That’s what I meant when I said ours were better than theirs.

Where ours are a danger – in my opinion – is that they and their views often guide our ship of state, which can (and has) caused mayhem and deaths in the tens of thousands in other countries (not to mention our own troops).  But I still think ours would cause fewer deaths than theirs given the size and strength of our military.  If a military with the power of ours had been in the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists it is unimaginable how many people would have been killed by now.  Millions and millions, I would imagine.

Best–

MRE