Bomb now, or bomb later? Discuss.
My local paper had a rather amusing April’s Fools article about this issue. More of a satire though. It reported British officials complaining about the treatment of the British prisoners, saying things like:
“How dare the Iranians take photos of the prisoners being served tea and smoking! Not only is it playing with a racial stereotype, but smoking is hazardous for health! In our prisons they would have gotten a sack tied over their heads so that they couldn’t even be recognized by friends and family.”
“The one woman of the prisoners appear to be calm in the photos, but our experts have analyzed the pictures and concluded that her body language shows signs of stress and apprehension. This is outrageous. A civilized country would have taken nude photos of her, like the wardens at Abu Gharib. The Iranians are completely disregarding the rules of a civilized nation’s treatment of foreign prisoners.”
Then again, they were interviewing one of the Monthy Python guys.
Feel the burrrn.
Now. It has been overdue for a long time! Less becalming, more napalming!
Fireworks! Wee!
Later. We should at least go in and get those British guys out first. I think it’s kind of sad Tony Blair was gung-ho right behind us in Iraq and then Britain loses some of her finest and Bush is sitting in Camp David with some Brazilian.
They are so going to get fucked. History has shown that wars have been started for falsified versions of this event.
Yes, that pretty much is the entire range of debate that is permissible in contemporary America. Conservatives want to bomb everyone now, whereas liberals also want to bomb everyone, but a little bit later. I think I’m going to vote for Ron Paul in 2008.
Yes, but Bush is much tougher when he’s up against defenseless countries that have been starved by a decade of sanctions (and even then, only after they voluntarily destroy their few short-range missiles), than when he’s dealing with countries that actually have means of fighting back. The belligerence of neoconservatives is exceeded only by their cowardice.
By the way, it’s entirely possible that we <i>are</i> dealing with a “falsified version” of the event, in that the British actually could have been trespassing in Iranian territory. So far, the evidence to the contrary largely consists of the word of known liar Tony Blair, plus a <a href=“http://www.alaskareport.com/images4/british_map.jpg”>map</a> drawn up by the British government that depicts an <a href=“http://charlotte.com/121/story/64997.html”>arbitrary</a> Iraq/Iran border that doesn’t actually exist and has no legal validity.
According to the one female in the crew, they HAD been trespassing
She reports this while being paraded as a media item in Iran. Why might this not lay the matter to rest?
It doesn’t. Nonetheless the British claim also deserves considerable scepticism. Furthermore, there has been no attack on American territory, so at the most this is a conflict between Britain and Iran – and, since the British presence in Iraq is itself illegitimate, perhaps a conflict between Iraq and Iran.
Let’s wait to bomb until the dictatorship has some nukes.
Yeah, like if we had bombed China and Russia, we would have totally avoided that nuclear war that ravaged the world for 30 years. Oh wait, that never happened. Wow, some countries other than America have powerful weapons and yet the world doesn’t end. How incomprehensible to the sad, paranoid cult of power that passes for political thought in America these days.
SK: US and Britain are allies, though, so saying the US has absolutely nothing to do with it isn’t completely true either.
Let’s wait to bomb until the dictatorship has some nukes.
Ah yes. That’d be a great idea, especially considering their wacko of a president the means to carry that out would be awesome. (Yes, I realize he’s several ants short of a picnic, but I wouldn’t bet the continued existence of a country on the hope that he won’t actually do what he says he wants to.) That’s the difference between every other country in the world and Iran: No other country has publicly threatened to wipe out another country within missile range.
Frankly, Iran doesn’t have to be bombed. Ahmedinijad is getting more unpopular by the day, both inside his country and in the Muslim world at large. Keep up a bit more pressure and wait a few months and chances are he’ll be out on his scrawny behind and slightly cooler heads would take over.
The Founding Fathers repeatedly advised against “entangling alliances,” largely because of the dangers of being dragged into unnecessary conflicts. If an “alliance” is threatening to start yet another unnecessary war, then we should reconsider the alliance, not start the war.
The only time I think the US would have (and in my mind should have) attacked Iran was when the embassy was taken captive. Sure, I know, anger over the Shah and all that, but it did constitute an attack on American soil that the Iranian government did express support for after it occurred.
My big problem, though, is concerned with the Third Geneva Convention. I remember when Saddam was captured, there was a big uproar that showing him on TV could constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. Something about not being allowed to show prisoners on TV since they may be used as propaganda. Now, Iran’s a signator of the Third Convention, and I really wonder why there’s not any sort of similar outrage over a possible war crime.
I love you SK.
The 984: Your question was probably rhetorical, considering its kinda sarcastic tone, but it is something that pisses me off, so I’m going to say why I think it happens, anyhow. I think it’s a combination of unjustly high international expectations for America (we haven’t done that much better than most other countries in the past, if better at all, but people get more angry at us when we cock up for some reason), which we foster from time to time with arrogant “world police”-type-announcements, and the low standards to which Iran is held, and which they kind of foster by associating themselves with groups with that sort of reputation. I mean, they’re muslims; islamo-fascists! Those are the terrorists, right? You can’t trust them to keep the Geneva Convention.
It’s kind of like how everyone makes a huge deal when somebody gets shot in a suburban school, but a stabbing in an inner city school goes on the news maybe once. It’s a load of bullocks about how people perceive them. Each nation is as much at fault as the outside for how they’re perceived, though, to be fair.
EDIT: Oh, and to everyone who replied to Silhouette, I think he was being acting as sarcastic provocateur, as when he suggested genociding the native Americans or whatever crazy shit it was in the Thanksgiving thread. He’s pulling a Salvadore Dali “anarcho-monarchist” on you, essentially.
There’s always the danger of being dragged into conflicts when you’re allies with anyone. But avoiding unnecessary ones means when you have to get involved in a necessary one you end up twiddling your thumbs until it’s too late. If a country which your citizens identify with and feel close to is threatened, doing nothing wouldn’t necessarily be a popular move.
Let’s put it this way: In the case, God forbid, that Iran does get nuclear weapons, and puts them to the use they say they’re going to, and the US does nothing - are you going to say that the US did the right thing by not getting involved and allowing a democratic country to be annihilated? If the answer’s no, then we’re just squabbling about probabilities (i.e. how likely it is that that scenario will actually happen. And as I said before, I don’t think the scenario will happen, because I think internal forces will stop it before it does. But hypothetically.) If the answer’s yes, I’m not sure I want to be a citizen of a country like that.
Arac: It’s more like picking your battles. Iran has repeatedly flouted international demands and laws, so Westerners aren’t going to get angry at them for yet another one when there’s so much at stake. As far as I can remember, most of the anger at the way Saddam was treated came from inside America, not from other countries; we’re critical of ourselves because we have the moral authority to do so. We’re on shakier ground when criticizing other countries, especially ones which we don’t really consider “free”.
Actually, my question wasn’t rhetorical or sarcastic. It’s a legitimate question.
I think your points are probably right. My guess, though as to why the US talking heads aren’t saying anything, is becasue if the conservative hosts complained about it, there would be tacit agreement that the videos of Saddam were in violation too. As for the liberals, I dunno. Maybe they don’t want to accuse Iran of war crimes for any reason, or they hold those semi-racist opinions about Muslims being bad and don’t want to admit. It’s probably some other reason. Maybe they don’t want to mention possible war crimes because it would give fuel to conservative rhetoric. The lack of liberal outcry on the subject, when they’re the ones that complained about the vidoes of Saddam, really befuddles me.
I doubt that there would be any spontaneous, non-artificial uprising of popular opinion on the grounds that the government <i>didn’t</i> start a war. Furthermore, the matter of which countries your citizens do or do not “identify with” is heavily influenced by the state in the first place, and changes as necessary. Hence why Americans “identified” with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war and against him in the Gulf wars. And finally, it’s not like there’s any threat to British sovereignty here. On the contrary, Britain violated the sovereignty of Iraq and then, while continuing to do so, was hanging around a territory that has been disputed for a long time by two parties, neither of which is Britain.
Iran has not said that they would use nuclear weapons on anybody. In fact, they’ve denied that they even want them. You can disbelieve that if you want, but that’s what “they say.” Furthermore, it should be stressed that to this day there is no evidence that their alleged nuclear weapons program even exists. However, if they were somehow to <i>obtain</i> nuclear weapons, I would still not be particularly afraid of a nuclear war breaking out, because if China and Russia are able to obliterate America between the two of them, and yet don’t, then it’s very unlikely that Iran, which is much smaller and less well-armed, would be any different.
For my part, I’m not really enthused about living in a country whose governing ideology is military intervention as the solution to problems that don’t even involve it in the first place.
I’m sure you can find outrage in the British press, but it would be a bit strange for a country that runs secret prisons all over the world to lecture anybody on ethical treatment of prisoners.
I doubt that there would be any spontaneous, non-artificial uprising of popular opinion on the grounds that the government didn’t start a war.
No, but there may be one if an ally is embroiled in a war that they didn’t start, the casualties begin mounting, and the US doesn’t get involved.
And finally, it’s not like there’s any threat to British sovereignty here.
Kidnapping soldiers isn’t a threat? Yes, I know it hasn’t been proven whether or not they were in Iranian waters at the time, but you can’t say that Britain has absolutely nothing to say on the matter. We’re pitting two countries’ words against each other, neither of which are particularly trustworthy, so it’s all moot anyway.
Iran has not said that they would use nuclear weapons on anybody. In fact, they’ve denied that they even want them. You can disbelieve that if you want, but that’s what “they say.” Furthermore, it should be stressed that to this day there is no evidence that their alleged nuclear weapons program even exists.
Of course. They’re one of the premier oil-producing countries in the world, but still need far more energy. And they’re refusing to let UN investigators in because they’re afraid they’ll tread on the flowers, is that it?
However, if they were somehow to obtain nuclear weapons, I would still not be particularly afraid of a nuclear war breaking out, because if China and Russia are able to obliterate America between the two of them, and yet don’t, then it’s very unlikely that Iran, which is much smaller and less well-armed, would be any different.
I’m talking about Israel, not America. A single nuclear bomb would effectively destroy Israel, and neither China nor Russia had anywhere near the messianic religious zeal that Iran has, at least judging from its own comments.
For my part, I’m not really enthused about living in a country whose governing ideology is military intervention as the solution to problems that don’t even involve it in the first place.
There’s always things to complain about. It seems every time I start talking about necessary conflict you always bring in the fact that the US gets involved in unnecessary ones. The fact that the US went into Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, etc. has absolutely no bearing on whether they should or shouldn’t go into something else. Each situation has its own specific circumstances and should be considered on its own.