Redstate

A few years ago, while on a cruise, I attended a few lectures given by a man who had just retired from the State Dept. I was really surprised by his dislike for our country and the venom he expressed about GWB. I would believe nothing he or his colleagues said.

The State Dept. has always been completely dominated by liberals. Just think about it. It's a bunch of diplomats who want to talk to our enemies endlessly.

"I just read books" - Joseph Turner (aka. "The Condor")

Do you lock your door at night? Or do you first call up all your neighbors and take a vote?

I just lock it.

Rusty,
I have relatively complete jurisdiction over the locks on my door. I do not have jurisdiction over my neighbor's homes or apartments and therefore I do not have the freedom to search them for weapons or to demand that they not acquire them.

The only place where this analogy (seemingly) breaks down is that I can appeal to the police force or to the government to deal with my neighbors. In the past, when thinking about these international issues, there was a recognition that above sovereign nations, the only higher authority to appeal to was God. Socialism/Humanism encouraged men to believe that a group of nations could become a proxy for God, and that they could get together, and by common agreement form an entity with the authority to infringe upon the sovereignty of another nation.

Part of the point I am trying to make is that while you do not have to agree with my position, you do need to think through the implications of your view of jurisdiction. If "might makes right:, then America can force any country to do anything it wants them to do as long as it has the sufficient might (e.g. sanctions, embargoes, use of military force, etc) You should just be aware, this has only recently become a position respected by conservatism. It has always been respected by tyrants.

maybe not everyone most people would have liked. We found that those "friends" were making blood money off of oil.

I remember right after the initial invasion FOX news had a call in about what benefits were seen immediately upon Saddam being taken out I called.....my answer on air "Saddam is no longer paying suicide bombers to blow up Israeli's". Israel by the way is a friend.

If not us who? If not now when?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty -- which the US and Iran are both signatories to.

I hope you would teach your children that if someone has a weapon that could take out the whole town, that your children should attack them before they have a chance to use it.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty -- which the US and Iran are both signatories to.

First of all, the terms of this treaty do not allow one to wage war upon suspicion of violation. Secondly, even if it did, the United States has been suspected and accused multiple times of violating the treaty, and by your logic, should be attacked.

I hope you would teach your children that if someone has a weapon that could take out the whole town, that your children should attack them before they have a chance to use it.

By your logic, Iran should be attacking us.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Iran. What I am a fan of is Just War theory, and it bothers me that we are so quick to abandon a concept that conservatives have held since our nation was founded (and for the last 1700+ years).

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

It's interesting to see you making a moral equivalence between the oldest constitutional democracy on earth, who hasn't taken one square foot of territory from any country it's defeated in war in the last 100 years, and a country currently being run by a tinhorn dictator that's threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

One of these countries has shown that it can be trusted with nuclear weapons. One has not. Yet you want to treat them the same.

Tell you what, you can take your moral equivalence and your lack of recognition of evil and stick it where the sun don't shine. You, sir, are no conservative of any stripe if you can't recognize evil when it's staring you in the face.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

I seem to recall the USA having taken a acre or two from Spain, and earlier from Mexico.

Let us not forget the territory taken by force from the Amerind peoples as well.

Sure, lately the USA has not sought territory - just permanent basing rights (see Japan, Germany, Iraq) from those it defeated.

Now let us take Iran. The nation of Iran has taken territory from no other nation in the last several centuries - she was in fact the victim of territorial aggression by the United Kingdom and Russian Empire.

Has Iran even initiated a war against any neighbor in the last several centuries? I think not, but won't swear to it.

You are right about being trusted with nuclear weapons - only one of these two has actually conducted atmospheric and underground testing, and has actually dropped two of them on a civilian target. One that at the time was no particular threat to anyone in the US given that wreck that was Japan in August 1945.

Is Iran a bastion of goodness, home to the good fairy Glenda? Hardly - but do not confuse the present, rather unpopular, government of Iran with the people of Iran.

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons now. Interesting that their last war predates that acquisition. Seems they want to talk rather than risk nuclear war.

If I were the leader of Iran nuclear weapons would have a definate attraction - not sure if they would be worth the cost though. I certainly would have been working on them while I though my neighbor Iraq was doing so given the recent war with Iraq, as who would entirely dismiss Hussein using one in round two?

What is your definition of evil by the way? Mine is that evil is when a person knows their actions to be wrong, yet does them anyway. I think we all have on occassion done evil by that standard. It is when one does not think their actions wrong that I worry - see Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et. al.

"Has Iran even initiated a war against any neighbor in the last several centuries?"

Yes it has. Ever hear of the Safavid Empire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#The_birth_of_modern_Iran:_Rise_of_the_...

P.S. You need to study more history.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Don't you think? A lot more distant than say, the Spanish-American war, initiated by the US despite Spain's pleas for negotiation, our various adventures in Central America, etc. Even if you wish to include the various Russo-Persian wars of the 19th century you don't find wars of conquest on the part of Iran so much as dynastic consolodation within historical Iran.

You need to understand more history.

Check your original comment you said "The nation of Iran has taken territory from no other nation in the last SEVERAL centuries" The Turks, and others would ultimatly disagree.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

several(a): (used with count nouns) of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many; "several letters came in the mail"; "several people were injured in the accident"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Ok, I usually thing several as 3-4 ish, but I carnt that if you go larger then yes, Iran has taken territory several centuries ago - before the USA even existed.

My point stands that if recent conquest is the standard the US pot is a whole lot blacker than the Iranian kettle.

"My point stands that if recent conquest is the standard the US pot is a whole lot blacker than the Iranian kettle."

I never challenged that point. Iran has not been strong enough to conquer territory in probably well over a 100 years. If they had the strength to deprive their neighbors of territory then they surly would have.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"Iran has not been strong enough to conquer territory in probably well over a 100 years. If they had the strength to deprive their neighbors of territory then they surly would have."

On what evidence do you base this assumption?

"On what evidence do you base this assumption?"

Stronger countries almost universally try to dominate, conqueror, or otherwise kick around weaker countries. Historically the only thing that really ever stops such behavior, is the establishment of some type of balance of power.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons now. Interesting that their last war predates that acquisition. Seems they want to talk rather than risk nuclear war."

India and Pakistan have fought two wars since India developed nuclear weapons. They have also fought one war since Pakistan joined the nuclear club.

Timeline
1974 India develops nuclear weapons
1984 Siachin war
1998 Pakistan develops nuclear weapons
1999 Kargil war

Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_India#Siachin_war.2C_19...

P.S. Please do not take this as an insult, but you need to study more history.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

First off, you might use sources other that Wikipedia, but that is your call.

The post 1974 incidents are border disputes, hardly wars as commonly understood despite the name Wikipedia give it.

The last commonly understood Indo-Pakestan war was in 1971, which saw the birth of Bangladesh.

Before nuclear weapons - full out warfare.

After nuclear weapons - minor border clashes with both sides showing great restraint.

I submit that there is a connection.

Jane's describes Kargil as a war, so it is a war.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw011102_...

P.S. I am going from memory here, but a war is an armed conflict that results in 500+ KIAs

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"The post 1974 incidents are border disputes, hardly wars as commonly understood despite the name Wikipedia give it."

See my link to Jane's website.

btw: Check the casualty figures on all of India's war. None of these wars were epic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"One that at the time was no particular threat to anyone in the US given that wreck that was Japan in August 1945."

Wow, you really need to study more history!

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Just saying it ain't so, even indirectly, adds nothing to the discussion.

By August 1945 Japan was a wreck. Her industry was all but gone from the near constant B-29 raids against which she was helpless. Her shipyards were a mess of twisted metal and shattered concrete, those still functional had little steel with which to work. Her navy was impotent, she had no fleet air arm to speak of, and the bulk of her army was still bogged down in China with no safe way to deploy elsewhere.

The US, rightly or wrongly demanded unconditional surrender. Such a surrender was at the time viewed by the US as impossible to obtain absent an invasion of Japan or the use of its new atomic weapons. The weapons were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in part to spare allied casualties from an invasion.

It is now well understood that if the US had not insisted on unconditional surrender, which had until then not been the norm in international relations, that a negotiated peace could have been obtained.

Thus, the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was a direct result of our insistance on unconditional surrender, not a military necessity.

"By August 1945 Japan was a wreck. Her industry was all but gone from the near constant B-29 raids against which she was helpless. Her shipyards were a mess of twisted metal and shattered concrete, those still functional had little steel with which to work. Her navy was impotent, she had no fleet air arm to speak of, and the bulk of her army was still bogged down in China with no safe way to deploy elsewhere."
Yet, Japan was still able to defend itself. The intelligence projections estimated that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would cost well over 1,000,000 American lives.
"The US, rightly or wrongly demanded unconditional surrender. Such a surrender was at the time viewed by the US as impossible to obtain absent an invasion of Japan or the use of its new atomic weapons. The weapons were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in part to spare allied casualties from an invasion."

Japanese surrender was not deemed impossible, but highly costly in terms of American lives.

"Thus, the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was a direct result of our insistence on unconditional surrender, not a military necessity."

Unconditional Japanese surrender was political, diplomatic, and long term military necessity. Without unconditional surrender, nothing would have changed in Japan. The culture, and the economic condition of Japan that drove it to invade much of Asia, and to attack us would not of changed, and we would of had to fight the Japanese again in the future.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I'm not suggesting that the bombing should start in five minutes, but I think you need to climb down from the ivory tower. What worked for 1700 years, and what worked for George Washington, is totally irrelevant when we're talking about nuclear weapons. The penalty for making a mistake on a 'weapons' issue is a bit bigger than it was 1700 years ago. If just one of those things goes off, a million people could die. The people around WhenOurNationWasFounded™ could not imagine such a thing. Holding up what "the founders" would do if Britain had invented the machine gun in 1811 is silly.

Please find another way to argue the proposition that we should take the bet that Iran will either not develop nuclear weapons, or that if they do, they will not try to slip one into Chicago. It's an interesting bet. The only thing is, "Sorry, I was wrong" won't quite cut it if Chicago goes pfffft.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

I hope you are teaching your children that if they think someone is planning to attack them, they should attack that person first; that if you see someone who might rob you at gunpoint, you should kill them before the have the chance.

Maybe not if I think someone is planning to attack me or if I see someone who might rob me. But if I know they are going to do either, I persoanlly would try and defend myself the best I can.

Haven't you figured out yet the U.N. doesn't have a lot of nations who are friends of the USA. This austere group isn't even effective at passing out humanitarian aid without corruption and ineptness leading the way.

It is basically impossible to justify a preemptive strike under Just War theory. And we can talk about "knowing" they will attack us all that we want, it does not justify a pre-emptive strike.

I agree with you completely about the UN. I think we should withdraw our involvement in and our financial support of their corrupt activities.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Imagine that you live in a city where the crime has been increasing and gang activity has been increasing. In fact, just across the street you've got a house where a respectable family used to live.

However, in the last few years, all sorts of unsavory types have moved in and begun terrorizing the kids and other neighbors and selling drugs and weapons to other gangs now growing on other streets. Multiple laws have been broken.

These persons are known to have been involved (by supplying other gangs with weapons and training) in almost daily attacks at your neighbor's house down the street and even some of his children were killed and kidnapped. For quite some time now, they have been openly talking about how they will soon be coming over to kill you and your neighbor down the street and giving you the one finger salute anytime you tell them to clean up their act or tell them you are calling the cops.

Now in your town, your state even, the police forces are broken and corrupt. When you call, they spend forever blaming your neighbors (the victims) for being attacked; 'if they would just move away, surely the problems would be cleared up.'

When you protest and tell them to do their job, they ask you questions like:

-Are you sure this is a real threat?
-have you tried talking to your offending neighbors? Perhaps you can sit down and work out your issues together?

Finally, at your insistence, they agree to deputize you to take down one of the worst gang houses on the street, and with your sons and daughters, you do so and spend your own time and money helping the previous family to move back home. However, since this time, the gang across the street have been killing your kids while they are cleaning up the mess down the street.

When the Police do show up - which is seldom - they are unwilling to serve the warrants they've been given and instead merely take the word of your ugly-neighbors that they are obeying the law, rather than search the premises, collect evidence and make arrests.

Other times, they post a guard in the neighborhood, but it has no effect on crime and it is obvious that they are not only ignoring the crimes, but often aiding the criminals and even participating themselves.

Now, you're pretty well armed (I'm sure you don't really own a gun, but for the sake of illustration lets suppose) and have reasonably good evidence that a major armed robbery and mass murder will take place in the near future on your neighbors' house followed by your house.

What are YOU going to do?

-let your kids get mugged and killed every day for their lunch money and tell them to turn the other cheek?
-let drugs and weapons sales continue to flourish while the neighborhood continues to decline?
-pretend its not really happening?
-move?
-wait until the anticipated crimes against you actually happen and then respond?
-since you live in one of the 49 states that permit citizens' arrest, do you do so against the lawbreakers across the street?

To paraphrase your comments, there's really very little jurisdictional difference between this situation and what we face across the pond.

The number one mission of the government is to keep its citizens safe and alive. The US has the right-and the obligation- to do whatever is required to protect and defend its citizens. I don't think there are many on this site that would deny this. Well, maybe one, but doubt he's really a Conservative.

*****
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go out and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds...unbelievable -DC Talk

"The US has the right-and the obligation- to do whatever is required to protect and defend its citizens."

The ends can not be used as a blanket justification of the means.

The key error in your argument is the word "whatever". There are actions that are generally prohibited as a matter of law or custom that may in dire circumstances be taken to mitigate against a greater harm. There are actions which are by their nature so unacceptable in all circumstances.

Lets get concrete. Would you justify our government:

Torturing the innocent as a means of leverage against presumed hostiles?

Using weapons of mass destruction in an indiscriminant manner?

Intentionally targeting civilians of a nation that harbors non-state actors as a means of forcing their ejection or a change of government?

Engageing in acts of piracy on the high seas to restrict the flow of dangerous contraband?

I don't think you would, nor would any leader worthy of the responsibility in our nation.

In YOUR argument is ignoring the word "required," which knocks out the most blatant of your examples.

If the blockading of Cuba in '62 and the boarding of ships for inspection can be called piracy, then I'm all for it.

Who get's to say what is "required"? Any means can be judged required, but requirement can not be a justification in and of itself.

Any action inherently unethical remains unethical regardless of the justification.

It is unethical to suggest that the United States as an entity does not exercise moral superiority over Iran.

-------------------------------------------------------

"I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

How do you define moral superiority? I for one am very loath to ever claim general moral superiority over any other entity. I think it far more productive to examine the ethics of individual actions.

The US is not perfect. Iran is not perfect. I greaty prefer the US system to the Iranian system. That does not mean that the US is always right, or Iran always wrong.

Put yourself in Iranian shoes - the US has invaded two of Iran's neighbors. Iran itself was invaded by Iraq with US tacit support and forced to fight a brutal war in living memory.

The US is widely understood to have overthrown the Iranian government to restore the Iranian monarchy.

Given that set of facts, is it unreasonable that Iran might seek nuclear weapons to defend itself?

I understand why we don't want them to have them, but can you understand why they want them?

To paraphrase your comments, there's really very little jurisdictional difference between this situation and what we face across the pond.

There is a great deal of difference between the two. In fact, your scenario breaks down pretty significantly in several areas: in the real world, there are no international police with any actual authority for us to call. There is no one who can "deputize" us to deal with the threat of Iran. And that's part of the problem: we've been pretending that the a group of nations such as the UN actually has this authority.

Also, in your scenario, these gangs are killing our "children", by which I'm assuming you mean US citizens. But this is not how action against Iran is being justified by the current administration. No, what we are being told is that because Iran wants to develop the same type of weapons that we have we must use force to stop them.

If you want to try to hold to your analogy, what we are doing with Iran would be like if one of your gang members told you that he wsa going to go and buy a gun and kill you, and you decided to go and kill him before he can purchase it. You would be guilty of murder. Hopefully no court in America would find you innocent.

Because it's easy to to lose track of someone's argument in an online discussion, I'll say it again, so I'm clear:

If Iran is killing Americans, or attacking Americans, then we already have every right to return attack and we are not talking about a preemptive strike.

I appreciate very much the fact that you want to protect your children. That is what I want as well. But I do not just want my children to be alive, I want them to be righteous.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Really? because I personally just want my kids alive.

Then you believe that there is no good or evil? If all you care about is survival, then the end always justify the means. No one can claim to be a conservative and hold to that position without begging the question: "What are you trying to conserve?"

Historically, conservatives have been those that believe in an unchanging absolute right and wrong and also in their obligation to live within it's framework.

What you are saying is that existing is all that matters, in which case, on what basis would you condemn Iran?

Have a good weekend,
Charles Churchill

"If they, or a group associated with Iran were to detonate it in an act of aggression, the retaliation would obviously be swift and brutal. I just don’t see the risk."

Your statement shows you do not pay attention.

Iran and it's Islamic extremist president and mullahs are not Russia. They are attempting to bring about the 12 imam and the only way to do so is through anarchy. The little man himself said so at the UN. This is not a mutually assured destruction scenario. Go back to dreaming that the world is safe and we American's are bad. You may not want war but war wants you.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

The balance of arms is very lopsided, so yes there would be no mutual destruction scenario. In fact if it came to that, a nuclear strike by Iran would destroy one or a few places, at the cost of complete annihilation for their entire nation. So again, why would they ever attack?

I never said "we Americans are bad," where did you read or infer that?

I also did not say the world is safe, but it certainly is not a black and white place that many would like us to think it is.

why the radical Islamists walk into a store with a bomb strapped to themselves and kill themselves. Answer? Because they're nuts. They have such a warped sense of purpose that anything, even self-destruction, is acceptable in the name of their beliefs. Surely after seeing what the Islamofascists do every day in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. you can't be so naive to think they would hesitate to do something to bring death to themselves.

This analogy simply doesn’t hold.

You are comparing the actions of a fanatical individual who is on the fringe of religion, and does not risk the death of millions of his/her countrymen as a result of his actions, but instead seeks to incite fear in civilians to push political and ideological change.

Now lets think about a nation that has made large financial investments under international scrutiny and trade sanctions in order to catch up to its neighbors and world leaders in technology. Would someone holding a high position of power in this nation be nuts enough sacrifice it for a fanatical agenda? Sacrifice an entire country and all its citizens? Clearly not.

"Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition." - Adam Smith

ARE "fanatical individuals on the fringe of religion." They make the same kind of decisions on behalf of their nation. Those in "high position in power in this nation" are not Islamofascists. There IS a difference. You are attributing far too much logic and sanity to the thought processes of the Iranian leaders.

Nice threadjack.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Although I believed my post to be relevant to the Thompson candidacy, I acknowledge RS's right to selective filtering.... [fading]

[WHAAAAA!!!!

*sob* *sob*

WHAAAAA!!!!!

*sob* *sob*

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA [Blam.]..

*pause*

*applause*]

You're a guest here. Don't like the policies? Then don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. This ain't a governmental organization.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

We've got a level 3 whiner here, and he's going into victimhood!

Listen up, bub. First, The Redstate editors/directors have final say to anything posted here. It's their site, you already agreed to that when you signed up - too late to want to take it back now. Second, DON'T THREADJACK. It's disrespectful, not only to the author of the piece, but to the readers as well. Your poll had nothing to do with Senator Thompson's piece.

I foresee a 1500 word essay....

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

The same place I put your plea for consistency. Where the sun don't shine.

We should treat nations that are our friends, or whom we wish to make friends, the same way we do countries that have been our declared enemies since 1950 or 1979? Countries that continue to declare their animosity to both us and our friends?

Not on Fred's watch, I hope.

HTML Help for Red Staters