Nationalism Vs. Rationalism

[NATO AIR]

Your thoughts on this point by Thomas PM Barnett, noted strategist and author of "The Pentagon's New Map" & "Blueprint For Action".

People support hardliners when outside threats are seen as prevailing. The nukes are all about
gaining security from U.S. invasion.
Until we make that happen somehow or simply acquiesce in their pursuit, hardliners will be
supported by the masses.
Right now we’re asking Iranians to choose between nationalism and us. This does not work.
Mullahs will never go and we can’t expect or want that. We just want them reasonably marginalized
in politics, and economic connectivity is best, fastest, safest route, IMHO.
Tom Barnett
(From the Jan. 16th Newsletter)

I am inclined to begin to agree with him, especially considering the long-term probability that Iran will get nukes, one way or another.

I wonder if its better to let them have it now, in a responsible and carefully monitored manner, and defuse a leading source of support for the hardliners.

Make America the nation that opens Iran up to the world again, and see what happens.

Because, in the long run, it seems we're going to be dealing with a nuclear Iran regardless. Better to have it on positive terms for us and our relationship with their people than a long, drawn out negative failure of our already failed anti-proliferation policy.

The genie is out of the bottle. Will we try vainly and unsucessfully to stuff it back in or let it out, benefiting as best we can when possible.

 

[liberalogic]

Your thoughts on this point by Thomas PM Barnett, noted strategist and author of "The Pentagon's New Map" & "Blueprint For Action".



I am inclined to begin to agree with him, especially considering the long-term probability that Iran will get nukes, one way or another.

I wonder if its better to let them have it now, in a responsible and carefully monitored manner, and defuse a leading source of support for the hardliners.

Make America the nation that opens Iran up to the world again, and see what happens.

Because, in the long run, it seems we're going to be dealing with a nuclear Iran regardless. Better to have it on positive terms for us and our relationship with their people than a long, drawn out negative failure of our already failed anti-proliferation policy.

The genie is out of the bottle. Will we try vainly and unsucessfully to stuff it back in or let it out, benefiting as best we can when possible.

I see what you're saying; the only thing that scares me are his aggressive threats to Israel and the US as well. That seems to exceed the line of using them for defense (as Barnett says) and unprovoked offense.

Regardless of that, though, I ABSOLUTELY LOVE this statement:

"Make America the nation that opens Iran up to the world again, and see what happens."

I could not have said that better myself...you are right on the money in my opinion....instead of threatening with war, let's try to rationalize. Great point!

 

[manu1959]

damn...i thought we were asking iran not to develope nukes and wipe israel off the face of the earth....so what we really want is for them to stop being iran and start being what? the koran belt?

 

[theHawk]

I see what you're saying; the only thing that scares me are his aggressive threats to Israel and the US as well. That seems to exceed the line of using them for defense (as Barnett says) and unprovoked offense.

Regardless of that, though, I ABSOLUTELY LOVE this statement:

"Make America the nation that opens Iran up to the world again, and see what happens."

I could not have said that better myself...you are right on the money in my opinion....instead of threatening with war, let's try to rationalize. Great point!

What if they don't want to be opened. Instead of generic feel-good statements how about you tell us how any civilized society is supposed to "rationalize" with a man who says Isreal should be "wiped off the map".
The situation in Iran should could use alot of rationality, but your implying its the U.S. is being irrational towards a leader who has called for the destruction of Isreal/Jews....something that hasn't happened since Hitler?

 

[liberalogic]

That land does belong to the Arabs, needless to say though, they have gone to extremes to get it back. And I think it's not about the US not being uneasonable, it's about just trying to negotiate with them for the sake of humanity.

 

[NATO AIR]

What if they don't want to be opened. Instead of generic feel-good statements how about you tell us how any civilized society is supposed to "rationalize" with a man who says Isreal should be "wiped off the map".
The situation in Iran should could use alot of rationality, but your implying its the U.S. is being irrational towards a leader who has called for the destruction of Isreal/Jews....something that hasn't happened since Hitler?

Their leadership is irrational, not the majority of the people.

Sanctions do not work.

 

[Gunny]

Your thoughts on this point by Thomas PM Barnett, noted strategist and author of "The Pentagon's New Map" & "Blueprint For Action".



I am inclined to begin to agree with him, especially considering the long-term probability that Iran will get nukes, one way or another.

I wonder if its better to let them have it now, in a responsible and carefully monitored manner, and defuse a leading source of support for the hardliners.

Make America the nation that opens Iran up to the world again, and see what happens.

Because, in the long run, it seems we're going to be dealing with a nuclear Iran regardless. Better to have it on positive terms for us and our relationship with their people than a long, drawn out negative failure of our already failed anti-proliferation policy.

The genie is out of the bottle. Will we try vainly and unsucessfully to stuff it back in or let it out, benefiting as best we can when possible.

I have to disagree. Rational is not allowing an organization/government possess nuclear weapons when they have proven time and again that if they don't get their way, they are more than willing to blow themselves up to blow us up to.

Comparatively, the Cold War was easy. The Soviet bloc feared being attacked every bit as much as we do so you had a standoff. Not so with Islamic fundamentalists who think there is some reward if they are destroyed striking at us.

And this "see what happens" as applied to nuclear weapons doesn't make it with me either. That's a Hell of gamble with a LOT of lives in the balance.

 

[manu1959]

That land does belong to the Arabs, needless to say though, they have gone to extremes to get it back. And I think it's not about the US not being uneasonable, it's about just trying to negotiate with them for the sake of humanity.

why does the land belong to the arabs? who sold it to them?

you are welcome to negotiate all you want...when their missle is done, they will launch it at israel....what would you like to wager?

 

[NATO AIR]

why does the land belong to the arabs? who sold it to them?

you are welcome to negotiate all you want...when their missle is done, they will launch it at israel....what would you like to wager?

Persians and Arabs... two very different groups of people.


By and large, most Persians do not have the same anthema feeling about Jews that Arabs do... only their crazed fundamentalist leaders.

Persians are less linked to religious unity than Arabs are. Percieve the pragmatic foreign policy of Iran, which enjoys strong relations with a Christian country, Armenia, far more than their other former Soviet neighbor, Azeribijadan. (sp?).

In a future world, an Israeli-Turkish-Iranian alliance is not out of the question, particulary if Egypt and Saudi are ruled by Islamic fundamentalists as is expected in the future.

 

[Gunny]

Persians and Arabs... two very different groups of people.


By and large, most Persians do not have the same anthema feeling about Jews that Arabs do... only their crazed fundamentalist leaders.

Persians are less linked to religious unity than Arabs are. Percieve the pragmatic foreign policy of Iran, which enjoys strong relations with a Christian country, Armenia, far more than their other former Soviet neighbor, Azeribijadan. (sp?).

In a future world, an Israeli-Turkish-Iranian alliance is not out of the question, particulary if Egypt and Saudi are ruled by Islamic fundamentalists as is expected in the future.

Question of the day: How do you separate the people of Iran from it's government?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Tomorrows question of the day, Why do you assume they will eventually get nukes?

 

[Gunny]

Tomorrows question of the day, Why do you assume they will eventually get nukes?

Because France, Russia and/or China will sell them to Iran?

 

[Annie]

Without reading anymore. Assuming that the Archs and RWA's and ilk are responding, let me say, at this point in time, it hardly matters what any of us say. The ME faction has the POV, which cannot be appeased.

The Euros have theirs, which says every country/culture is as maleable as their own. Wish it were fact.

 

[liberalogic]

why does the land belong to the arabs? who sold it to them?

you are welcome to negotiate all you want...when their missle is done, they will launch it at israel....what would you like to wager?

My comment about the land belonging to the Arabs had nothing to do with the nukes...I was just saying that their hatred is justified (though the extremes to which they take it is not).

The land was part of the English Empire and promised to the Arabs, but then given to the Jews after the Holocaust instead of to the Arabs.

 

[manu1959]

My comment about the land belonging to the Arabs had nothing to do with the nukes...I was just saying that their hatred is justified (though the extremes to which they take it is not).

The land was part of the English Empire and promised to the Arabs, but then given to the Jews after the Holocaust instead of to the Arabs.

my comment about who owned the land had nothing to do with nukes either

why is their hatred justified?

so it was the english's land and theirs to do with as the please? and they gave it to israel....so why don't the arabs hate the english, it isn't israels fault the english went back on their promise....by the way where did the english get it?

 

[theHawk]

Their leadership is irrational, not the majority of the people.

Sanctions do not work.

I never said 'sanctions' would work. And wasn't this new Prez of theres 'democratically' elected? Let the people fall with their leader...I have zero sympathy for any of them...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The conflict mentioned in the title of this thread is, in fact, as presented a false dichotomy. READ MY SIG.

Nato, you know how sometimes you start tripping out, when some libs under the influence of the dark side gets in your ear with some shit? THis is one of those times.

 

[Mariner]

RightWing view of how to handle Iran?

They've certainly been careful to hide and disperse their nuclear activities so they won't be easily taken out by simple air strikes.

And there is no doubt they will get the bomb one day--they already have the technology, they only need adequate fissile material. Some reports say that the CIA provided them the necessary technology, when a plan to give them non-working blueprints was foiled by a double agent who also provided them the corrections to the bad blueprints. Or, they could have gotten it from Khan in Pakistan, the scientist who we should have forced Pakistan to clamp down on years ago. But we were in a hard position there, since we needed Pakistan in our fight against Al Qaeda.

I like GunnyL's comment: "Comparatively, the Cold War was easy."

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And there is no doubt they will get the bomb one day--.

This is defeatist thinking. All your thinking is premised on the "eventuality" of defeat. You're highly flawed.

 

[trobinett]

Your thoughts on this point by Thomas PM Barnett, noted strategist and author of "The Pentagon's New Map" & "Blueprint For Action".



I am inclined to begin to agree with him, especially considering the long-term probability that Iran will get nukes, one way or another.

I wonder if its better to let them have it now, in a responsible and carefully monitored manner, and defuse a leading source of support for the hardliners.

Make America the nation that opens Iran up to the world again, and see what happens.

Because, in the long run, it seems we're going to be dealing with a nuclear Iran regardless. Better to have it on positive terms for us and our relationship with their people than a long, drawn out negative failure of our already failed anti-proliferation policy.

The genie is out of the bottle. Will we try vainly and unsucessfully to stuff it back in or let it out, benefiting as best we can when possible.

GREAT POST Sir, I was so impressed, I didn`t read any of the responses to your thread starter, as I wanted my response to be untained.

Yours are the words of a true diplomate, they deal with the truth of the matter, and try to show what positive steps can be taken, and why.

I found your use of the "genie is out of the bottle", very telling of the over all problem, in trying to keep Atomic engergy, in all its forms, away from other nations.

Yours may not be the ONLY answer, but it takes the problem, and tries to show why it`s foolish, to evade the realities of the world.