Oh god, now Obama wants to apply gun control logic to nuclear weapons...

[m1911owner]

And yah know, I think people took the threat of Adolf Hitler too seriously, too...   

[MicroBalrog]

Therefore now let us treat every threat as if it was Nazi Germany.

Seriously, this is not a legitimate argument in any way, shape, or form.

It's a reductio ad hitlerum.

[m1911owner]

So, you're saying, what, exactly?  Hitler was unique?--there never was another like him before him, and their will never be another again?

Did you learn nothing from Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, and Saddam Hussein, to mention a few?

[MicroBalrog]

My argument is very , very simple:

Not every tyrant overseas is a threat to the United States. The Khmer Rouge and Saddam never threatened the United States.

Even among those tyrants that are opposed to the US, not everybody is a threat of such a magnitude that it justifies making fear of these tyrants the prime directive of all politics.

For example, Muamar Kaddafi [sp?] hates America, but everybody knows that he's just a little worthless bum, and not an actual threat to America.

MAYBE, just MAYBE Iran is an existential threat to Israel (which, last time I checked, wasn't a US state). This still doesn't justify making fear of Iran the overriding factor of US politics.

Besides which - nowhere does Ahmadinejad even approach the level of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or the Khmer Rouge.

As I said:

We are not sure he's crazy, we're not sure he's in charge, and we are not sure he's building a bomb.

[Manedwolf]

My argument is very , very simple:

Not every tyrant overseas is a threat to the United States. The Khmer Rouge and Saddam never threatened the United States.

Even among those tyrants that are opposed to the US, not everybody is a threat of such a magnitude that it justifies making fear of these tyrants the prime directive of all politics.

For example, Muamar Kaddafi [sp?] hates America, but everybody knows that he's just a little worthless bum, and not an actual threat to America.

MAYBE, just MAYBE Iran is an existential threat to Israel (which, last time I checked, wasn't a US state). This still doesn't justify making fear of Iran the overriding factor of US politics.

Besides which - nowhere does Ahmadinejad even approach the level of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or the Khmer Rouge.

As I said:

We are not sure he's crazy, we're not sure he's in charge, and we are not sure he's building a bomb.

Been reading Neville Chamberlain's writings?

[MicroBalrog]

Too late, Manedwolf.

This thread has already been Godwined.

[xavier fremboe]

Quadaffi might have been a poor choice for the analogy.  The ghosts of Pan Am 103 would argue that armed with a nuclear weapon, he would have done something on a grander scale, having proven that he was willing to destroy a commercial airliner with a conventional, but poorly programmed, explosive device.  Difficult to argue that he wouldn't have deployed it against someone somehow.

Horrible movie, but to paraphrase The Peacemaker,  I'm scared of the cat who wants ten nuclear bombs.  I'm terrified of the guy who wants one.  IIRC, Iran flares off more energy than they would produce from 'peaceful nuclear power'.  They export oil, but import gasoline for goodness sake.  This does not appear to me to be a state that takes a sane long term view of anything.

Does this warrant an opening of a third front on the WOT?  No, certainly not by us.  I'd welcome some heightened interest by our 'allies', however.

[MicroBalrog]

Look, there's no argument that Iran is financing terrorism and generally can do some nasty stuff.

But it's very clear that they're not anywhere near to the level of threat that the Soviets posed.

To which -and I said it before - the threat is insufficient to warrant turning all the resources of society to fighting them, or to justify being content living with the overgrown monstrosity that is the 'modern state'. W. F. Buckley's dictum does not apply to Iran.

They're not big, smart, or scary enough.

[anygunanywhere]

With regard to western countries (may I actually state non-islamic?) developing/posessing nuclear weapons, specifically during the cold war years, the principle at play was MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction.

Although we looked on the soviet block countries as mad, they were quite sane and actually operated under that good old "we want to live" mantra.

North Korea pushed the envelope of MAD given that Kim Jong-Il is a narcissistic loon.

The MAD principle does not work once individuals who have no fear of sacrificing millions of lives for their crack at a few celestial virgins get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

Yes, Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, and the sole reason is Ahmadinejad. He is crazy.

Anygunanywhere

[xavier fremboe]

Look, there's no argument that Iran is financing terrorism and generally can do some nasty stuff.

But it's very clear that they're not anywhere near to the level of threat that the Soviets posed.

To which -and I said it before - the threat is insufficient to warrant turning all the resources of society to fighting them, or to justify being content living with the overgrown monstrosity that is the 'modern state'. W. F. Buckley's dictum does not apply to Iran.

They're not big, smart, or scary enough.

I think we're in agreement here, and I should have been clearer.  I don't see a need for a third front utilizing American forces.  I think it should be handled by regional powers.  My point was that even with the Khaddafi analogy, Americans lost lives due to no one stepping up and actually solving the problem.  We wouldn't be seeking NATO involvement to stop a nuclear El Salvador, would we?  Well at least not in a pre-Obama era...

[m1911owner]

But it's very clear that they're not anywhere near to the level of threat that the Soviets posed.

...

They're not big, smart, or scary enough.

So, Neville, do you think you can pull off a diplomatic coup with him that will guarantee peace in our time? 

[m1911owner]

This thread has already been Godwined.

Godwin only applies when it is an inapt comparison.  Here we have a national leader who has promised to exterminate the Jews, and is proceeding at maximum speed to develop the materiel with which to carry out that promise.

[m1911owner]

MAYBE, just MAYBE Iran is an existential threat to Israel (which, last time I checked, wasn't a US state). This still doesn't justify making fear of Iran the overriding factor of US politics.

Neville, it looks like I should have read your posts more carefully before posting--I see that you've already posted your plan for peace in our time:  Just let him have the Sudetenland Israel, and he'll leave the rest of us alone.

That just might work.

[MicroBalrog]

This thread has already been Godwined.

Godwin only applies when it is an inapt comparison.  Here we have a national leader who has promised to exterminate the Jews, and is proceeding at maximum speed to develop the materiel with which to carry out that promise.

No, that is not true.

1. Ahmadinejad has never promised to exterminate all the Jews, he is at worst an enemy of Israel. There are Jews in Iran, and even in the Iranian parliament.

2. Israel possesses military superiority over Iran in any aspect, superiority so decisive that it simply does not require American help to deal with Iran. Israeli leadership, however, benefits vastly politically in both playing up the Iranian threat, and trying to make sure it's America that does the actual shooting.

3. Ahmadinejad is not calling the shots in Iran WRT the developement of nuclear weapons.

4. You may have noticed that I do not in any way suggest the Iranians are nice people. The Iranians, in my view, sponsor Islamic terrorism in the Middle-East for their profit (namely, high oil prices and political gain). They benefit hugely from there being instability and fear in the region - not just because it jacks up oil prices, but because it benefits them politically - but they do not benefit from war, because they'd be squashed like a bug. Their game is to rock the boat just enough, but never actually provoke anybody big. If they are seeking a nuke it's to give themselves more latitude in the boat-rocking, not to blow people up.

Arming Hezbollah? Yes.

Arming the insurgency in Iraq? Yes.

Attacking Israel or America with nukes? No.

Ahmadinejad may or may not be crazy, but the people who are behind him are most definitely not. They're shrewd politicians, and they don't want to die. They also know enough Islamic doctrine to know that they do not need to die in battle to gain the proverbial virgins (the Hadith is crystal-clear on this).

Let me say it again:

In any serious armed confrontation between Iran and any Westernized country, Iran would get it's a$$ sliced, diced, and handed back to it on a plate. America, Israel, and Saudi Arabia each could beat Iran in air, on the ground, and on the sea. Even Iraq pre-Invasion beat Iran. There's no contest.

What does this mean?

1.It means that diplomacy with Iran is possible, just like diplomacy with the USSR was possible (Reagan did it). America and the West are in a position of strength, and can afford diplomacy.
2.We on this forum are almost all conservatives (I use the term broadly, and include libertarian minarchism and libertarian anarcho-capitalism as conservative ideas). In the past, when the Soviets were around, many conservatives believed that the Soviet threat was a good enough justification to tolerate Big Government, and that dealing with foreign affairs was Priority One of our movement. However, my point is merely that Iran is NOT a threat of the magnitude of the Soviets. EVEN IF these people were once right, they are no longer so.

In my view, our objectives should be Change and Hope. Namely conservative change (eliminating spending, regulations, taxes, and gun control) and right-wing hope (that we can roll back the Welfare State and achieve Liberty in Our Lifetime).

I refuse to curl up like a little mewling puppy and let the fear of 'terrorism' and 'the Islamic threat' to distract me from my main objective, which is freedom.