Skip to main content

View Diary: Noam Chomsky on U.S. policy towards Iran (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  BughouseWW, I enjoy debating but... (0+ / 0-)

    I agree that US intervention, particularly from the federal government, could make things worse but the humanitarian in me wants to believe that some international organization can help.

    The reason that I brought up these problems was to show that the leaders of Iran are fanatics and their governmental organization is not up to par.  The thought of them getting a nuclear bomb is scary.  I think GW Bush is crazy but he wouldn't advocate executing gay people, or nuking another country and other checks and balances would limit him if he did.  I'm not so sure about the government of Iran.        

    Anyhow, you must admit that your rosy picture of an intellectually free and democratic society that you painted in your first post, wasn't quite honest.  When I put the above quotes, it appears you may have backed off from this initial statement that you made here and in a lower post.  I definitely learned something from your posts and hopefully you learned something from mine.      

    •  Bush gives this guy your tax $ to infiltrate Iran (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard

      Thanks for a rational response, cassdog.
      I suppose I do paint a rosier picture than is warranted. I'm trying to counterbalance the demonization that is far more negative than the facts support.

      And because I truly detest Josh Muravchik, who has once again slipped his leash:

      http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/

      Iran Nuclear Watch  
      AEI Scholar Says Iranian Bomb Is 'Intolerable'

      Posted: 20 Nov 2007 08:12 AM CST

      In an Op-Ed in USA Today, Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute and a member of the State Department's Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion, toes the line of the Bush administration and hypes the threat of Iran's nuclear program. Muravchik writes: "Our choice is stark. Accept Iran with an atom bomb or cripple its nuclear program by force. Nothing else will stop Tehran."

      Muravchik is in favor of military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and argues that the President alone is positioned to carry out such strikes. He states: "Only strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities can forestall these terrible scenarios. This would not require a 'declaration of war,' an antiquated concept that has not been employed since World War II and rarely before. We would send no troops, conquer no land. Rather, we would act in pre-emptive self-defense...Congress can block presidential action, but in this case, most members will be satisfied to stand clear and let the president do what must be done."

      When a coward sees a man he thinks he can beat he becomes hungry for a fight. -Chinhua Achebe, Things Fall Apart.

      by BughouseWW on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:31:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ps (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard

      a. I do NOT agree that Iran's leaders are fanatics.  Corrupt, perhaps, but not fanatics.  Ahmadinejad was one of the five top nominees for best mayor in the world; he's not a fool, he's far more competent than Bush, he is not financially corrupt but is using reckless rhetoric to maintain his place in a crowded government structure, loaded with moneyed cronyism that does not include him.  Ahmad plays the populist role to poor people whom he has severely disappointed.

      b. That Iran's governmental organization is not 'up to par' is really not the business of the US to solve.  Courageous Iranian reformers who have taken life-and-death chances to challenge their government to function in a different way are being marginalized by Bush.  I believe it is deliberate:  a nuclear Iran is not nearly the problem Bush makes it out to be; an Iran, reformed by Iran's own reformers rather than by Bush puppets, is what Bush-Cheney and the Likuk cannot abide.

      c. Get off the gay thing.  It's a side show.  

      If you think that sounds callous, you should have tuned in to this afternoon's Israel Policy group conference on the upcoming Annapolis Summit:  A panelist from Haaretz backed up David Wurmser in decreeing that "removing settlers from Gaza was trouble enough; Israel cannot be bothered to move any more settlers; Gaza will have to be it."  In other comments, panelists revealed that the whole settlements issue, the whole  international borders issue, the whole Jerusalem issue, from the Likud point of view, are sideshows, irrelevant.  

      Gays in Iran are a problem.  But destroying Iran's nuclear capability on the lunatic advice of a Muravchik -- an act that could devastate thousands of square miles and kill hundreds of thousands of people -- that's serious.  More serious then Iran's gay problem.

      When a coward sees a man he thinks he can beat he becomes hungry for a fight. -Chinhua Achebe, Things Fall Apart.

      by BughouseWW on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:46:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site