Westerners Losing Heart to Preserve Greatness

[jbg]

This morning, I went to an anti-Hezbollah rally at my synagogue. I was stunned to be arguing with a 74 year old Jewish person about Iran. He was arguing that we should be "negotiating" with Iran's president. I asked him what our first concession should be. I asked, if the first concession on the table was withdrawing support from Israel, thus dooming it, would that be acceptable? He answered "obviously not". I asked if he had any ideas what acceptable goals the Iranian mullahs might have. He had no idea.

Many Jews, it seems, have lost the heart to fight for themselves, and are unworthy of the extensive array of support they receive from Christians of good will such as Harper and Bush. I am afraid that the West, similarly, has lost interest in preserving what's best about us; our freedom from fear, freedom from want, political and religious freedom, standard of living, relative equality of opportunity, and the English language.

[daddyhominum]

This morning, I went to an anti-Hezbollah rally at my synagogue. I was stunned to be arguing with a 74 year old Jewish person about Iran. He was arguing that we should be "negotiating" with Iran's president. I asked him what our first concession should be. I asked, if the first concession on the table was withdrawing support from Israel, thus dooming it, would that be acceptable? He answered "obviously not". I asked if he had any ideas what acceptable goals the Iranian mullahs might have. He had no idea.

Many Jews, it seems, have lost the heart to fight for themselves, and are unworthy of the extensive array of support they receive from Christians of good will such as Harper and Bush. I am afraid that the West, similarly, has lost interest in preserving what's best about us; our freedom from fear, freedom from want, political and religious freedom, standard of living, relative equality of opportunity, and the English language.

Nice to know that someone born in 1933 can be so rational about threats to Israel. Every battle will end in negotiations. Your friend realizes it is the best way to start a battle as well.

In fact, the UN and the nuclear powers are negotiating with Iran now in the hope of maintaing a peacefull relationship against a backdrop of sanctions and possibly war.

Iran says it wants nuclear power for peacefull purposes but most of us disbelieve that.

So why should Iran want nuclear weapons? The coalition forces in Iraq publicly accuse Iran of supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents. Israel, whom Iran believes has nuclear weapons, blames Iran for the Hezbollah attacks and some Israelis believe Iran should have been attacked for that. Glenn Beck calls for the USA to attack Iran everyday on his program on Channel 33. US politicians have openly called for attacks on Iran. There is a large ex-patriot Iranian population with support inside Iran who constantly call for the overthrow of the regime.

Perhaps Iran wants nuclear weapons to balance the threats made against them.

Maybe Iran 's security could be guaranteed by arrangements reached through negotiations and Iran would not feel the necessity to continue its arms build up.

I agree with your realist friend. After years of war, the Middle East is no more secure then it was in 1950. Real negotiations can have better results then threats of war.

[Riverwind]

if the first concession on the table was withdrawing support from Israel, thus dooming it, would that be acceptable?

You are making the assumption that Iran would demand such a thing in any serious negotiation. Iran's nuclear aspirations have become an issue of national pride - Iranians resent being bullied by western countries who have nuclear technology and think that they are hypocrites who have no business telling Iran what it can and cannot do. If Americans or Canadians were in that situation you can bet that they would react the same way - patriotic nationalism is a powerful force.

I find it so tiresome that the US thinks that the rest of the world should do its says and not as it does. If the US wants Iran to give up nuclear technology then it will have to think of getting rid of its own. If it does not want to do that then it must accept that some countries which it does not approve of will get the bomb.

I don't believe that Iran would use the bomb if it got it because I think the Iranian leadership recognizes that such a move would not be in the best interest of their people (Unlike places like Iraq or Myanmar the Iranian Mullas actually do care about the fate of their people). When it comes terrorists acquiring bombs I think we have much more to fear from Pakistan which already has the bomb.

[August1991]

Nice to know that someone born in 1933 can be so rational about threats to Israel. Every battle will end in negotiations. Your friend realizes it is the best way to start a battle as well.

It seems that many in the West are confused about when to negotiate, and when to be firm.

We have the experience of September 1938 and the experience of August1914.

----

Would everyone please refrain from using large fonts unless there is a good reason?

[Riverwind]

We have the experience of September 1938 and the experience of August1914.

I find these constant references to Munich tiresome. Refusing to 'give' Hitler Checkoslovakia would have changed nothing. Hilter just would have started WW2 by invading Checkoslovakia instead of France. It is possible that the allies would have been a better position to defend themselves but that would not have stopped Hitler from taking much of Western Europe since Hilter was prepared for war. In fact, I would argue that the compromise in 1938 contributed to the arrogance that later led to the decision to open a second front with Russia. If Hitler had not done that then WW2 would have latest much longer than it did.

[jbg]

Nice to know that someone born in 1933 can be so rational about threats to Israel. Every battle will end in negotiations. Your friend realizes it is the best way to start a battle as well.

Rational in that you probably would be quite happy with Israel either being wiped out or its Jews and Christians becoming dhimmis in a Muslim empire?

In fact, the UN and the nuclear powers are negotiating with Iran now in the hope of maintaing a peacefull relationship against a backdrop of sanctions and possibly war.

A lot of ditzing and shuffling around. Does anyone truly believe that Iran is negotiating in good faith? Does the UN or is the UN complicit with Iran in trying to hold off US action?

Iran says it wants nuclear power for peacefull purposes but most of us disbelieve that.

You'd have to be mad to believe that a major oil exporter needs to import uranium to meet its energy needs. I agree that the Iranians are lieing, as is their wont.

So why should Iran want nuclear weapons? The coalition forces in Iraq publicly accuse Iran of supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents. Israel, whom Iran believes has nuclear weapons, blames Iran for the Hezbollah attacks and some Israelis believe Iran should have been attacked for that. Glenn Beck calls for the USA to attack Iran everyday on his program on Channel 33. US politicians have openly called for attacks on Iran. There is a large ex-patriot Iranian population with support inside Iran who constantly call for the overthrow of the regime.

Perhaps Iran wants nuclear weapons to balance the threats made against them.

Rational democracies don't use their nukes willy nilly. The only use of nukes was made to avoid one quarter million American troops, and a far larger number of Japanese from being slaughtered in a conventional invasion.

Maybe Iran 's security could be guaranteed by arrangements reached through negotiations and Iran would not feel the necessity to continue its arms build up.

Ah, yes, an incipient Switzerland? I think not. The proposition that there is any unprovoked threat to Iran is ridiculous. Granted, if they keep up the threatening rhetoric and arms buildup, of course, they'll provoke an invasion. If they lived and let live, of course they wouldn't be invaded.

I agree with your realist friend. After years of war, the Middle East is no more secure then it was in 1950. Real negotiations can have better results then threats of war.

The ME is not more secure because the Arabs cannot, will not allow a non-Muslim nation to thrive there. Eventually, the Arabs can, will and must take it on the chin for that.

[jbg]

if the first concession on the table was withdrawing support from Israel, thus dooming it, would that be acceptable?

You are making the assumption that Iran would demand such a thing in any serious negotiation. Iran's nuclear aspirations have become an issue of national pride - Iranians resent being bullied by western countries who have nuclear technology and think that they are hypocrites who have no business telling Iran what it can and cannot do. If Americans or Canadians were in that situation you can bet that they would react the same way - patriotic nationalism is a powerful force.

I am quite unwilling to sacrifice my life to some mad mullah's pride. I am quite sure that much of the former middle class, which under the Shah was quite extensive, would prefer to have their middle class economic lives and relative freedom back, to the "pride" of knowing that some madman has the nuclear trigger.

I find it so tiresome that the US thinks that the rest of the world should do its says and not as it does. If the US wants Iran to give up nuclear technology then it will have to think of getting rid of its own. If it does not want to do that then it must accept that some countries which it does not approve of will get the bomb.

We've been pretty good neighbors to the countries we border. Ask the government in Kabul, or even Saddam Hussein how they feel about the Islamic Republic of Iran as a neighbor.

I don't believe that Iran would use the bomb if it got it because I think the Iranian leadership recognizes that such a move would not be in the best interest of their people (Unlike places like Iraq or Myanmar the Iranian Mullas actually do care about the fate of their people). When it comes terrorists acquiring bombs I think we have much more to fear from Pakistan which already has the bomb.

Are you quite sure? Where are the checks and balances? Why should we not believe what they tell us about themselves? Maybe their threats are not lies. I don't know. I also don't want to find out.

[Riverwind]

I am quite sure that much of the former middle class, which under the Shah was quite extensive, would prefer to have their middle class economic lives and relative freedom back, to the "pride" of knowing that some madman has the nuclear trigger.

All of the progress that the formal middle made in the 20 years has been wiped away by this confrontation. Bullying Iran simply increases the political strength of the Mullas.

Ask the government in Kabul, or even Saddam Hussein how they feel about the Islamic Republic of Iran as a neighbor.

Kabul has a bigger problem with Pakistan than Iran. The Iran-Iraq war was started by Iraq with the support of the US. Iran was the victim in that war.

I don't know. I also don't want to find out.

You are not likely going to have a choice. If Iran wants weapons it will get them. The only way to stop it at this point is to sit down and negotiate and, god forbid, offer concessions.

[jbg]

We have the experience of September 1938 and the experience of August1914.

I find these constant references to Munich tiresome. Refusing to 'give' Hitler Checkoslovakia would have changed nothing. Hilter just would have started WW2 by invading Checkoslovakia instead of France.

Last I checked, Poland was their first target

It is possible that the allies would have been a better position to defend themselves but that would not have stopped Hitler from taking much of Western Europe since Hilter was prepared for war. In fact, I would argue that the compromise in 1938 contributed to the arrogance that later led to the decision to open a second front with Russia. If Hitler had not done that then WW2 would have latest much longer than it did.

I do agree that the "appeasement" of 1938 may have had some beneficial side effects. The trouble is that the year that was "bought" was squandered rather than being used for military preparedness. Both France and Britain were woefully unprepared for war on September 1, 1939.

[jdobbin]

This morning, I went to an anti-Hezbollah rally at my synagogue. I was stunned to be arguing with a 74 year old Jewish person about Iran. He was arguing that we should be "negotiating" with Iran's president. I asked him what our first concession should be. I asked, if the first concession on the table was withdrawing support from Israel, thus dooming it, would that be acceptable? He answered "obviously not". I asked if he had any ideas what acceptable goals the Iranian mullahs might have. He had no idea.

Many Jews, it seems, have lost the heart to fight for themselves, and are unworthy of the extensive array of support they receive from Christians of good will such as Harper and Bush. I am afraid that the West, similarly, has lost interest in preserving what's best about us; our freedom from fear, freedom from want, political and religious freedom, standard of living, relative equality of opportunity, and the English language.

Do you think Israel should attack Iran?

[jbg]

This morning, I went to an anti-Hezbollah rally at my synagogue. I was stunned to be arguing with a 74 year old Jewish person about Iran. He was arguing that we should be "negotiating" with Iran's president. I asked him what our first concession should be. I asked, if the first concession on the table was withdrawing support from Israel, thus dooming it, would that be acceptable? He answered "obviously not". I asked if he had any ideas what acceptable goals the Iranian mullahs might have. He had no idea.

Many Jews, it seems, have lost the heart to fight for themselves, and are unworthy of the extensive array of support they receive from Christians of good will such as Harper and Bush. I am afraid that the West, similarly, has lost interest in preserving what's best about us; our freedom from fear, freedom from want, political and religious freedom, standard of living, relative equality of opportunity, and the English language.

Do you think Israel should attack Iran?

Maybe wipe out the nuke research facilities.

[daddyhominum]

This morning, I went to an anti-Hezbollah rally at my synagogue. I was stunned to be arguing with a 74 year old Jewish person about Iran. He was arguing that we should be "negotiating" with Iran's president. I asked him what our first concession should be. I asked, if the first concession on the table was withdrawing support from Israel, thus dooming it, would that be acceptable? He answered "obviously not". I asked if he had any ideas what acceptable goals the Iranian mullahs might have. He had no idea.

Many Jews, it seems, have lost the heart to fight for themselves, and are unworthy of the extensive array of support they receive from Christians of good will such as Harper and Bush. I am afraid that the West, similarly, has lost interest in preserving what's best about us; our freedom from fear, freedom from want, political and religious freedom, standard of living, relative equality of opportunity, and the English language.

Do you think Israel should attack Iran?

Maybe wipe out the nuke research facilities.

It may be that Iran may attck a neighbour or Israel or the USA some day. It may be that Iran will launch a nuclear attack against another nation some day. But I don't think you can attack some one for what they may do at some indefinite time to some indefinite nation.

The situation between India and Pakistan is far more dangerous and immediate in consiidering future nuclear war. Iran may be a theocracy but the country seems to be far more stable and much better governed then Pakistan, imo.

Finally, though Iran has a large educated population, it just does not have an economy that can produce a war machine capable of doing damage to western nations compared to the devastation that would result in Iran if an attack was ever launched from there.

imo

[jbg]

It may be that Iran may attck a neighbour or Israel or the USA some day. It may be that Iran will launch a nuclear attack against another nation some day. But I don't think you can attack some one for what they may do at some indefinite time to some indefinite nation.

IMO it's far worse than that. The "indefinite nations" are either Israel or Sunni Arab countries in the area. The real danger is it makes them invulnerable to conventional attack.

Japan was a rare case where offensive use of a nuclear weapon could work, because of the concentration of people and industry on Japan's East Coast. In most cases, nukes are more for creating an insuperable obstacle to a conventional attack, as was their use in Western Europe during the Cold War. I do not think an unattackable Iran is in anyone's interest.

[Figleaf]

This morning, I went to an anti-Hezbollah rally at my synagogue. I was stunned to be arguing with a 74 year old Jewish person about Iran. He was arguing that we should be "negotiating" with Iran's president. I asked him what our first concession should be. I asked, if the first concession on the table was withdrawing support from Israel, thus dooming it, would that be acceptable? He answered "obviously not". I asked if he had any ideas what acceptable goals the Iranian mullahs might have. He had no idea.

Firstly, one of the reasons one enters negotiations is to find out what grounds for agreement exist. Presupposing that such grounds don't exist is an act of dogma, not pragmatism.

Secondly, I hope this was a brief discussion between these two people, because I don't see any reason a 74 year old should have to put up with patronizing impudence like that.

Many Jews, it seems, have lost the heart to fight for themselves, and are unworthy of the extensive array of support they receive from Christians of good will such as Harper and Bush. [/size][/font]

That is a rather repellent statement.

The proposition that Jews have lost heart to fight for themselves because some of them would prefer to seek peace is absurd.

Furthermore it is an insulting ploy to engage the bitterness some Jews feel about having been victimized so 'easily' by the Nazis.

Beyond that, to suggest that a desire to seek peace is a betrayal of "Christians of good will" or the Punch and Judy act comprising Bush and Harper reveals a twistedness I can barely begin to fathom.

[daddyhominum]

It may be that Iran may attck a neighbour or Israel or the USA some day. It may be that Iran will launch a nuclear attack against another nation some day. But I don't think you can attack some one for what they may do at some indefinite time to some indefinite nation.

IMO it's far worse than that. The "indefinite nations" are either Israel or Sunni Arab countries in the area. The real danger is it makes them invulnerable to conventional attack.

Japan was a rare case where offensive use of a nuclear weapon could work, because of the concentration of people and industry on Japan's East Coast. In most cases, nukes are more for creating an insuperable obstacle to a conventional attack, as was their use in Western Europe during the Cold War. I do not think an unattackable Iran is in anyone's interest.

Then Iran has a right and a duty to defend itself by developing the best defensive measures it can. That right is assured by tradition and coded in the UN Charter.

If we can't find a way to make Iran secure by negotiation , it will make itself secure by nuclear missiles capable of reaching everywhere on earth as provided by that right.

[crazymf]

Ehhh.....some people need to give their heads a shake. While the talking is going on, Iran is building bombs or facility to build bombs. When they get bombs they will use them. Downtown TelAviv will be the first target IMO.

What happens next depends totally on China and Russia and which side they pick.

For now it wouldn't surprise me at all if Israel takes military action on Iran if they see negotiations linger or stall.

I'm sure the CIA or some spookier people are in there trying to affect regime change in Iran right now.

[Higgly]

I am quite sure that much of the former middle class, which under the Shah was quite extensive, would prefer to have their middle class economic lives and relative freedom back, to the "pride" of knowing that some madman has the nuclear trigger.

You clearly know nothing about what it was like to live in Iran under the Shah. I doubt you will find many Iranians who yearn for the days when that psychopath was running the country

We've been pretty good neighbors to the countries we border. Ask the government in Kabul, or even Saddam Hussein how they feel about the Islamic Republic of Iran as a neighbor.

What is your reference here? It was Saddam who attacked Iran (with plenty of US encouragement), and not the other way around.

I too find the references to Chamberlain tiresome and specious. Israel and its Zionist forebearers have been "taking a firm hand" with the Arabs since the first Zionist Convention in 1899. This is the result.

[Riverwind]

When they get bombs they will use them. Downtown TelAviv will be the first target IMO.

Why? What makes the Mullas of Iran any crazier than the crackpots running China, Russia or Pakistan?

[Higgly]

When they get bombs they will use them. Downtown TelAviv will be the first target IMO.

Why? What makes the Mullas of Iran any crazier than the crackpots running China, Russia or Pakistan?

Or the psychopaths running Israel, for that matter. Sharon... Netenyahu... Begin...Shamir... not to mention the ones running Shin Beit.

[jbg]

I too find the references to Chamberlain tiresome and specious. Israel and its Zionist forebearers have been "taking a firm hand" with the Arabs since the first Zionist Convention in 1899. This is the result.

Ah another one who wants Israel pushed into the sea. What plans do the "Palestinians" have for true independence and economic vitality? Oh, I forgot, they want to suck the West's blood, through the UN.

[Wilber]

I find these constant references to Munich tiresome. Refusing to 'give' Hitler Checkoslovakia would have changed nothing. Hilter just would have started WW2 by invading Checkoslovakia instead of France. It is possible that the allies would have been a better position to defend themselves but that would not have stopped Hitler from taking much of Western Europe since Hilter was prepared for war. In fact, I would argue that the compromise in 1938 contributed to the arrogance that later led to the decision to open a second front with Russia. If Hitler had not done that then WW2 would have latest much longer than it did.

Actually it could have made a big difference. Hitler wasn't capable of fighting a two front war in 1939 let alone 1938, it's only because Britain and France sat on their butts and waited for him to attack after he had finished with Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark and Norway that he was able to avoid being involved in one. Also, Czechoslovakia had quite a strong military but when the British and French handed the Sudetenland over to Germany, they lost any chance they had of defending themselves and made the annexation of the rest of the country certain. Hitler might have been stopped in 38 and most assuredly could have been stopped if the allies had stood up to him when he walked into the Rhineland in 36.

Hitlers real ambitions were always in the east. The destruction of Soviet Russia had always been one of, if not his main objectives. It was the war in the west that prevented him from carrying it out, not the other way around.

[Wilber]

From Spartacus.schoolnet

Adolf Hitler wanted to march into Czechoslovakia but his generals warned him that with its strong army and good mountain defences Czechoslovakia would be a difficult country to overcome. They also added that if Britain, France or the Soviet Union joined on the side of Czechoslovakia, Germany would probably be badly defeated. One group of senior generals even made plans to overthrow Hitler if he ignored their advice and declared war on Czechoslovakia.

The last chance to avert WWII was thrown away at Munich.

[M.Dancer]

I find these constant references to Munich tiresome. Refusing to 'give' Hitler Checkoslovakia would have changed nothing. Hilter just would have started WW2 by invading Checkoslovakia instead of France.

Ummm....Hitler stated WWII by invading Poland (why does everybody forget Poland?) ....WWII had already started by the time he invaded France.

[yam]

Iv forgotten why - strategic/geographical??

[Argus]

It may be that Iran may attck a neighbour or Israel or the USA some day. It may be that Iran will launch a nuclear attack against another nation some day. But I don't think you can attack some one for what they may do at some indefinite time to some indefinite nation.

IMO it's far worse than that. The "indefinite nations" are either Israel or Sunni Arab countries in the area. The real danger is it makes them invulnerable to conventional attack.

Japan was a rare case where offensive use of a nuclear weapon could work, because of the concentration of people and industry on Japan's East Coast. In most cases, nukes are more for creating an insuperable obstacle to a conventional attack, as was their use in Western Europe during the Cold War. I do not think an unattackable Iran is in anyone's interest.

Then Iran has a right and a duty to defend itself by developing the best defensive measures it can. That right is assured by tradition and coded in the UN Charter.

If we can't find a way to make Iran secure by negotiation , it will make itself secure by nuclear missiles capable of reaching everywhere on earth as provided by that right.

There have been plenty of negotiations with Iran. If we need to bomb it into the stone age to keep them away from nukes I'm okay with that. And no, it won't particularly bother me if that means a million dead Persians.