What An Iranian Conservative Hawk Might Say

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:40:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Matt Yglesias deliver some great snark with a point, taking on the voice of an Iranian Richard Perle:

[I]t's not clear that a policy of appeasement would be wise. True, we've seen rational leadership even from vicious dictators like Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong, but the contemporary United States is led by religious fanatics, which introduces a new element into the equation. What's more, the USA is the only country on earth to have ever actually deployed nuclear weapons. Indeed, current political elites are so war-crazed and bloodthirsty that they not only engineered the 2003 attack on Iraq -- a country that tried to appease the Americans by eliminating its nuclear program and allowing IAEA inspectors to certify that it had done so -- but they continue to deny regretting it to this day. And that includes not only radicals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but so-called "moderates" like Hillary Clinton as well.

Well played by Matt.

< Would It be Worthwhile For Bill Clinton To Discuss Hillary's Role In His White House? | Mitt Romney's Willie Horton Moment: Throws Judge Under Bus >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What An Iranian Conservative Hawk Might Say | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Thread cleaned (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:17:19 AM EST

of insults and going off topic.

Please respond to the post. Also, "yawn" is not a comment. It contributes nothing. I've deleted them where I've found them.

Of course there is a difference between (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 06:07:55 PM EST

Iran and the US.

And if you can't see that difference, then frankly, I feel sorry for you.

: Because A is much better than B (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by glanton on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 06:52:22 PM EST

It most certainly does not follow that they receive different moral judgments for the same exact action.
And if you cannot see that, then frankly, I fel sorry for you.

Direct hit at Hillary Clinton. (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:47:06 PM EST

But her vote in favor of Kyle-Lieberman makes it a fair point.

right, (none / 0) (#2)
by cpinva on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 03:01:09 PM EST

and the gov't of iran has been such an easy going bunch, since they overthrew the shah. don't get me wrong, sabre rattling isn't my preferred method, but a "big stick" as a known backup sure comes in handy, when dealing with psychopaths.

make no mistake, the iranian mullahs are psychopaths (as much, if not more than, the saudi mullahs), willing to kill anyone to push their version of an islamic republic on the rest of the world, to the detriment of the bulk of the population of that country. letting them know we aren't averse to engaging them militarily, while at the same time attempting to engage them diplomatically, isn't a bad approach, it worked with the soviets.

i suspect that's what a lot of people who voted for kyle-lieberman thought they were voting for, not giving bush the go ahead to attack iran.

And we're not pushing OUR version... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Dadler on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 03:17:25 PM EST

...of what kind of government other countries should have? To the detriment of their population AND ours?

You really can't be serious. Of course Pres. Ahmaf*ckinidiot and his mullah masters are extremist sc*mbags. The only problem is that, in our very own murderous way and denial ridden manner, we are much the same kind of sc*mbag. It's not religion we push as much as our own power to control and profit from. And we do it by INVADING other nations in a manner the Iranians could never in their wildest dreams imagine.


I remember (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 10:16:04 AM EST

dozens of terrorist attacks from the various radical Moslem terrorist groups over the past 30 plus years.

We will either get them to reform or the attacks will continue. If you follow the history of the attacks they have become larger and capable of killing more as time has gone by.

I see no internal thrust for reform of the radical Moslems, as there was within the Catholic church. Absent that the reform will have to be applied from the outside.

Sad but necessary.


Denial proves that you are (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:13:14 PM EST

incapable of following a series of events, or else you are making a false claim.

Go back and start with the Embassy take over in '79 and you can clearly see the increase.


: Rather than (1.00 / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:36:47 PM EST

being obsessive over my one admitted mistake regarding how many times an ex-KKK member and Demo Senator has used the N word, why not just admit that the terrorist attacks grew year by year.
Instead you twist and turn and try to act like you didn't understand that 9/11 is the bench mark within the US.
yadda yadda and thanks for showing tour SOP of parsing and dodging. You really have become unworthy of debate.
BTW - Do you think he used the N word more than once when he was a KKK member??
tehe

You are correct. (1.00 / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 10:08:49 AM EST

letting them know we aren't averse to engaging them militarily, while at the same time attempting to engage them diplomatically, isn't a bad approach, it worked with the soviets.

The problem is that with the Soviets we were dealing with a nation state, not a bunch of religious fanatics. Thus it would be expected that they would respond somewhat rationally.

That can not be expected of Iran.

The real problem is this. The Soviets believed we would fight because we had demonstrated that we would, and that the country was very much in agreement about the need to oppose the Soviets.

That is not true of the current situation. In fact, we are sending messages that we won't fight (get out of Iraq) and that we don't really oppose their belief in Shari law. This is a terrible and deadly cocktail.


And you'll take yours with (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by jondee on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:57:45 PM EST

Kool Aid.

Killing a hundred thousand people is "sending a message that we wont fight"? Something tells me that they might've gotten the message by now.

And, do you think the 9/11 hijackers gave a flying rats as* whether we would "fight" or not? They knew that we would fight.


: Amusing how similar (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by jondee on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:07:18 PM EST

the demogogic, inflammatory rhetoric aimed at the "somewhat rational" Soviets was to the kind the Jims of today use toward Iran: It was all, "These people will stop at nothing until the convert the world to their system..blah blah"
There wasn't much public discussion ever about the Soviets being rational beings, as I recall.

: Your claim to misunderstand (1.00 / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:10:19 PM EST

is not believable.
The message that is being sent is the same message sent by the Left during Vietnam.
Hold on and you can win a political victory.
See Harry "I surrender" Reid's various comments.

Warmongering fanatics with dreams (none / 0) (#4)
by Edger on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:09:34 PM EST

of world domination. They're crazy. They'll invade anyone, any chance they get.

They have to be stopped.

Why these Persian nutbars even went as far as attacking Russia the last time they tried to take over the world.

In 1826.

Must Have (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by squeaky on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:18:24 PM EST

Something to do with that Ayran purity gene.


Do you think (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 10:10:49 AM EST

that there are any Iranian leaders from 1826 alive??

Come one edger, you disappoint me.


: It's what I do. (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 10:51:11 AM EST

Too smart by a mile (none / 0) (#6)
by koshembos on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:30:53 PM EST

Since I seldom find Matt Y. very insightful, it's not surprising that this time the argument seem cute but actually in my opinion is hardly worth the time. With all due respect, a fascist such as Bush has absolutely nothing in common with Hillary. His and hers reasons couldn't be any more different.

Personally, I never understood why Hillary doesn't just say: well, this was not my best vote. What's the harm? Although her advisors are first class tactician, big statesmen they are not. This one is one of many strange decisions. However, it's far from being Bush.