[ordercigsnick]

I don't think anyone's saying that.

Apparently someone thinks a whole country is on some sort of suicide bombing mission:

If Iran got nukes, it could attack us anywhere it wanted. Or our allies. A rowboat in the Hudson River would be all it takes. Really, this isn't a country that thinks in terms of its own self-interest, which makes outrageous acts of aggression completely within the realm of possibility.

We're talking about a rogue state with explicit goals to acquire nuclear technology. That alone is enough to make us worry. The Saudis and the Israelis have been pushing us to act harder even when Bush was president.

[jstizzle]

This is fascinating. The article begins by stating the author's opposition to a war with Iran, Kuci, and you conclude that the author's policy prescriptions risk war.
Well, they consist of (a) an information campaign (b) further economic pressure (c) a covert sabotage campaign.
Which of these actions risk escalating into a war? All of them were pursued to varying degrees by the Bush Administration. As to (c), google Stuxnet. None actually led to war, or even led to an increased risk of war. (a) and (b) are being pursued, albeit without as much vigour as the author or I might like, by the Obama administration. Ergo, (a), (b) and (c) must lead to war with Iran?

[JonDopl]

Kuci is actually incapable of disagreeing with someone without ridiculing them as well, unless that person is KH or Drake.

I'm civil to all the posters who have shown themselves not to be idiots, not just KH and Drake.

[oB8LI2kP]

My point, sir, is that neoconservatism consists of two propositions: "democratic countries tend not to go to war" and "therefore, we should encourage democratic movements to arise."

Two fallacies right there.

Firstly, democratic countries do tend to go to war a hell of a lot and with disastrous consequences, especially when driven by either neo-cons or liberal humanitarian warriors (I can hardly tell the difference, tbh). These architects of slaughter and mayhem don't seem to think of their actions as warlike in precisely the same way as Islamic Fundies believe themselves to be delivering peace on earth once everyone has been persuaded to submit to Allah (and presumably the correct demoninational flavouring of submission).

Secondly, democracy has to be something achieved by the people, not imposed by an elite - and especially not by foreign invaders. There is also the business of some democracies not being considered democratic enough by the Western centres of power (US / NATO / EU) - basically because they are not sufficiently aligned to the West. The level of democracy in such countries may well not be perfect - but neither is it necessarily perfect in those countries that have appointed themselves rulers of world (which is what both the neo-con and liberal-humanitarian-bombers do).

[brandiweb]

You forgot Saudia Arabia/etc.

JM

[Agitoligflise]

You forgot Saudia Arabia/etc.

JM

No one is shooting at the soldiers in Saudi Arabia.

[Heacechig]

Taliban didn't do 9.11

[DeedPatmeda]

Kuci

-Arrian

[Relsenlilky]

Not when the costs massively outweigh the gains. We can eliminate the threat by not walking down this particular dark alley each night. That's cheaper and easier than becoming Batman.



There is precisely one policy at fault for putting American citizens at risk of harm, and that is the policy of having soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To assert that there is a policy "at fault for putting American citizens at risk of harm" is not the same as asserting that there is a solution to the same involving nothing more than reversing the policy.
Iran will go against American interests whether or not you are in Iraq. It will do so violently if its leaders think violence will work, and it is the task of the United States' government to dissuade it from doing so to the extent possible. Each of the methods prescribed by the author aim to do exactly that.
If you don't think Iran is a threat and will be a threat in its future, how do you take account of the fact that its rallying cry is "Death to the Great Satan/America"? How do you take account of the fact that its regime is geared towards and supportive of a conflict with the United States, and that it is convinced that eventually it will emerge victorious in that conflict? By asserting that US interests won't be harmed after a pullout? Doesn't the US actually have other interests in the region? Won't those interests be harmed in the event of a stronger Iran?

[Promalada]

No I asked:

Who are you to deny the Iranians the right of a "stronger" Iran ? (Whatever that may be).

[ivandiadser]

No I asked:

A hostile power.