It’s win-win.

No I won’t.

Mark said, in an attempt to close the productive thread with some levity!

“I think, Kathy, if you read and take time to absorb what B.Poster is conveying in response to your well-expressed thoughts, that you’ll eventually come to understand why we’re good and they’re bad; why war is not wanted but is often necessary; why no one wants war, but that war wants you.”

Well, if you will permit me to turn the tables: I think that if you and B. Poster read and take the time to absorb what I am conveying in response to the thoughts that have been equally well-expressed by both of you, you’ll eventually come to understand that “good” and “bad” are verbs, not nouns. (Yes, I know they are actually both adjectives, but I’m speaking figuratively.)

“No one wants war but war is sometimes necessary” (although I note here that “often” has replaced “sometimes,” which is the word I have always seen before) is an aphorism that is often used by people who don’t have to experience war directly. It’s so easy to say that war is “unwanted” but “necessary” when the bombs are not falling on you, and the death squads and suicide bombings are not terrorizing your family and friends. I wonder if you would feel the same way about war if you were living in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or even Europe, where the memory of the last century’s wars are still all too recent.

I can agree that war is sometimes inevitable, but it’s never necessary; and it’s always the worst solution possible. War happens when all the better solutions have either failed, or failed to be tried — because warmongers and war profiteers are real.

“Martin Luther King was a staunch supporter of Israel. He would be appalled at the way Israel has been treated within the UN and elsewhere. I suspect he would be the first to condemn Arab naked aggression against the state of Israel. I also think that he would be horrified at America’s wholesale departing from a Christian world view.”

I do have a response to that; but given that I hate putting thoughts and ideas about contemporary issues in the mouths of dead heroes who died before those issues developed, I won’t go there.

By the way, I am familiar with worldnetdaily.com and have indeed read some of the articles there. I’m very surprised that you recommend it, though, since you are such a critic of slanted news reporting.

“For the record, I think this president should be impeached.”

LOL, we’ve found something we can agree on! I’ve intentionally omitted your next sentence, though, because if I included it, we would be disagreeing again! :))

“I must agree with Mark that your thoughts are well expressed. We just have strong disagreeements but you seem to be a thoughtful person. It is a pleasure discussing world events with you.”

The feeling is mutual. There; we found something else we can agree on.

I must agree with Mark that your thoughts are well expressed. We just have strong disagreeements but you seem to be a thoughtful person. It is a pleasure discussing world events with you.

At the risk of veering off topic, in an earlier post (#13) you say that President Bush panders to the religous right. I would consider myself a member of the “religous right” or at least syympathetic to them. Btw, I agree with your earlier sentiment that labels are odious. From my perspective, he does not pander to this group at all. He may throw them a bone now and then and he may say some things that tickle their ears but these people have gotten nothing of substance from him. I would suggest reading some of the articles at http://www.worldnetdaily.com for more detailed analysis of how the Bush administration routinely sticks it to this group. It seems to me that they have played both ends against the middle and have made very few people happy.

You suggest the president panders to wealthy white men. I find no evidence in the President’s actions of this. During the 2004 Presidential campaign the President posed with a Mexican flag and he blasted the Minutemen as “vigilantes.” For the record, I think this president should be impeached. His unwillingness to do anything about border security is treasonous.

As a tax accountant, I can say definitively that the tax cuts that were enacted by the President have been a huge boon to the middle class. The middle class has benefited as much, if not more than the rich have. The President’s actions have not pandered to rich white men or even to the rich.

You certainly have the basic underpinnings of understanding down pat already. Oh, and I think you thought I was he in an earlier post, but I am me not he

If you must laugh, it must be becuase you have not seen or heard the rhetoric that comes from our enemies. Its understandable, as the msm does not cover it very much. The Communist enemy was and is very real. Marxists and Islamic Extremists have joined forces to maek an even more formidable enemy.

For the US to connect a struggle with its dominance in the world, would require it to dominate the world. After WWII, the US did dominate the world, however, now it does not. While it is very influential, arguabley the most influential nation state on earth now, it does not dominate the world. The US, Russia, and China are the big three right now. These three are roughly equal in world influence. They each have different strengths and weaknesses but over all they are about equal.

“In the long run monopolies never succeed because they sow the seeds of their own destruction within them.” I agree. This is why ultimately organizations like OPEC and the UN will be obliterated. They are unjust entities who attempt to lord it over everyone else. I wish the US would withraw its support from the corrupt UN but it is comforting to know that the UN and its fat cats will be brought to justice some day. Also, the leftist main stream media is still the dominant source for news, however, they have lost ground in recent years. Their monoply of slanted reporting will not be able to contiune for ever. At this time, the US really has no monoply on anything to bring to an end.

“The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I like this statement from Martin Luther King, as well. I think he nailed it. This is why ultimately Islamic extremism and Communism will be crushed. Perhaps not by the US because the post Christian US and the post Christian western world have, to a large degree, lost the abiltiy to distinguish good from evil. In the end, a Judeo-Chrisian world view will prevail. Ultimaelty freedom, capitalism, and the free enterprise system will win out.

Martin Luther King was a staunch supporter of Israel. He would be appalled at the way Israel has been treated within the UN and elsewhere. I suspect he would be the first to condemn Arab naked aggression against the state of Israel. I also think that he would be horrified at America’s wholesale departing from a Christian world view.

Ultimately for justice to prevail Islamic extremism and Communism will be defeated. Hopefully the US will be the one to rid the world of these evil scourges. If the US does not do it, womeone will. If it comes to it, God will personally intervene in the affairs of mankind to put an end to the evils of Communism and Islamic extremism. I look forward to the day that the world is rid of those ideologies of hate.

I think in many ways this need for an external enemy is related to America’s success in WWII. Fighting Nazism made the U.S. a world superpower, so in some sense we keep on trying to find enemies to battle because we connect that apocalyptic struggle with our dominance in the world.

But here’s the thing — and I really believe this. In the long run, power monopolies never succeed, because they contain the seeds of their own destruction within them. I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., when he said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

I take comfort in that.

Also, the US will want to work to somehow strengthen the hand of moderates within the Iranian government, if there are any. The current regime is as oppressive as any in the world. With this regime it seems unlikely that we could establish a frame work to address the real and imagined grievances that both parties have. For real negotiations to work, both parties must want it. There are many powerful people in the US and the West who are ready and willing to make major concessions. No major policy makers in Iran seem willing. Bush for all of his flaws, seems to recognize that the Iranians are, at this time, uninterested in peaceful relations, however, he may be forced by the political situation into negotiations with them. The approach of many in the US and the West is to assume that there is nothing worse than war and everyone feels the same way. With this mentality in place the Americans and the West would get taken to the cleaners in any negotiations. The long range survival of the US and Western civilization would be extremely precarious.

Mossadegh appears to have been in bed with the Communists. The notion that he was not seems to be a historical rewrite. In any event, the Americans had good reason to be concerned. Of course this is not to justify all American actions. Sometimes like the actions of anyone they can be wrong. If the British or the Americans stole Iranian oil, the Iranians should be compensated. Again, take it before the world court or the UN General Assembly. If the Americans or the British did something improper, it would have a profound symbolic efrect. World opinion would force the Americans to do what ever the Iranians wanted.

If you are supported by the Communists, you are called a nationalists or something to this effect. If you are supported by the Americans, you a stooge or something to this effect.

According to some reports the American role in overthrowing the Mossadegh regime is greatly exaggerated. At the time, to over state the CIA’s role served the propaganda purposes of the Americans and those opposed to the Shah. The same torture techniques you described as being done by the Shah are being done by the current Iranian government. They are very careful about controlling the flow of information from their country. As we did not control Iran, we would not be able to control what the Shah did or did not do within his country. It was a relationship of convenience. We both needed each other. This is much the way Iran uses Hezbollah and Syria. A nation always has interests but alliances seem to change from time to time. It should not be this way but it is. Perhaps we should not have looked the other way. That said, it is doubful the Americans or the Isarelis could have done much about it. It is always convenient for the Iranians to blame the Americans or the Israelis for their failings.

Had we not fought the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the Soviet Union would still be in business and it is very likely that the US would have been absorbed into the Soviet empire. War does not work when it is not fought to completion. For example, Germany and Japan were obliterated in WWII. We have not heard from the Nazis or imperial Japan since then. The first Gulf War was not fought to completion. This made it inevitable that we would have to go back sooner or later. Also, the recent Israeli/Hezbollah war was not fought to completeion. This makes it inevitable that it will be fought again. In this case, Israel should have been allowed to complete the job rather than restrain Israel. Finally, the Communists are still in charge of Russia. This made it inevitable that they would be back and they are with a vengence.

When the Iranians want peace their is a viable and strong peace movement within the US that is ready to address the issues at hand. Right now, there exists no peace movement that has any power within Iran that has any strength. The so called “doves” are either dead or marginalized. For any type of resolution to work, the Iranians will have to make some compromises. From the rhetoric of the leaders of Iran, they don’t seem willing. They are unwilling to bring formal charges before the UN for the issues you mention above becuase this might lead to a resolution. They don’t want a resolution. Their goals are to destroy “Great Satan” and “little Satan.” Any peace agreement with the current Iranian government would only be used to rearm and prepare for the next round.

I see three options going forward. 1.) Commit more troops to Iraq. Commit enough force to secure the country and give the Democratic proces a chance to work. 2.) Redeploy to Kurdish areas and only intervene in Iraq’s Civil War to halt the advances of Iran and Al Qaeda. 3.)Many people in Iran seem unhappy with the rule of the Mullahs. There are a number of groups we could work with to remove that government. I prefer option 1 or 3 but they cannot be implmented right now. We will ultimately go with option 2 or somehting simillar.

Islamic extremism is similar in many ways to Nazism. Both need an external enemy that they can demonize. In the case of the Nazis, it was the Jews. In the case of Islamic extremists, it is the Israelis and the Americans. They generally do not allow dissenting views within their countries.

Finally, a little over fifty years ago Britian dominated Iran’s oil industry. Today Iran is a much more influential player on the world stage than Britian is. Iran has had over twenty five years to reach an acceptable agreement with the US, Britian, and the West. They have chosen not to do so.

First off — my apologies for the neocon jab. Labels are odious.

“… from what I know the Mossadegh regime was a proxy of the Communist Soviet Union. If so, this would have been a major threat to us. Allowing the Shah to be overthrown was a huge mistake.”

And in your separate post:

“I did some more reading on the Mossadegh regime. It may not have been as simple as I originally thought. Based on what I know so far it seems the action was justified. The regime clearly seems to have been hostile to Britian and the US. It seems to have set out to steal British developed oil wells and it may have been consorting with Communists. …”

Mossadegh was not a proxy of the Soviet Union. Of course, that was the assumption the U.S. made back then about any country that resisted Western attempts to use its natural and human resources, but it was not the case here. Mossadegh certainly had socialist leanings, but he was not a Soviet Communist. He was a nationalist. He was elected freely and fairly and had enormous popular support because he supported the Iranian people’s right to control their own resources, and to benefit economically from their own country’s resources.

Of course Mossadegh’s regime was hostile to Britain and the U.S. Britain and the U.S. (Britain especially in this case) were removing the oil from Iranian land and taking the lion’s share of the profits for themselves. The Iranians who worked for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP) were confined to very menial positions and treated as inferiors. Britain consistently refused to alter these arrangements despite numerous non-violent attempts on Iran’s part to get them to do so. The beef against Mossadegh was that he nationalized the oil industry, which meant that Western interests would no longer be able to reap those enormous profits. Of course, no one at the time said that. The excuse for overthrowing Mossadegh was that he was allied with the Soviet Union, but that was simply not true. It was a convenient excuse for Britain and the U.S. to protect their economic interests.

You say that allowing the Shah to be overthrown was a huge mistake. The U.S. did not have that much choice in the matter, really. It’s that phenomenon I discussed in my earlier post about it being impossible to rule with fear and terror indefinitely. By 1979, the Iranian people had lived through 25 years of a regime that was among the most brutal of the 20th century. Savak, the Iranian secret police under the Shah whose very name was enough to terrorize, was responsible for over two decades of killings and torture horrific enough to equal anything Saddam Hussein did in Iraq. Savak, by the way, was a CIA creation, and its agents were trained by Israel’s secret police agency, Mossad.

The mistake was not “letting” the Shah be overthrown. The mistake was installing the Shah in the first place. That’s what led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, not failure to support the Shah enough. I think that you greatly underestimate the depth of the resentment, anger, and yes, hatred, that Iranians had 25 years to develop against the West, knowing as they did that it was the American CIA that overthrew Mossadegh and put the Shah in power. The 25-year rule of the Shah was a reign of terror. People had their limbs dissolved in acid, and sometimes they were killed that way (their entire bodies dissolved). They had their skin and body parts sliced off by machines designed to cut meat. They were strapped to tables that were then lowered down toward a source of fire, and burned alive, slowly. I’m sorry to be this graphic, but it’s important to understand just what it was the U.S. put in place and supported for a quarter of a century.

“The Iranians could take their complaint before the UN general assembly or the world court.”

And you think that would be effective? The US refused to sign on to the world court and withdrew from it precisely so that the US would not have to face the possibility of US nationals being tried for such crimes. John F. Kennedy’s statement, “Those who make peaceful change impossible make will make violent revolution inevitable,” is apt here. Of course, it’s a bit hypocritical, coming from JFK, but he was right nonetheless.

“…when we fought WWII we obliterated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Prior to WWII Germany and Japan served as a check on the Soviet Union. When we obliterated Germany and Japan we removed this check on the Soviet Union. After we won WWII, we fought the Cold War with the Soviet Union.”

And the Cold War with the Soviet Union led us to support brutal dictatorships in places like Iran and Iraq, which allowed Islamic terrorism to get stronger and fueled the market for it in the Middle East. The Cold War with the Soviet Union led us to give money and arms to the mujahideen who fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan — and who later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden began his career as a fighter in Afghanistan. Then came 9/11, and we invaded Afghanistan again; then we invaded and occupied Iraq, which led to the empowering of our enemy Iran, not to mention a vastly increased, both in size and power, network of terrorist connections.

My conclusion? War does not work. War may SEEM to work, as a short-term solution to a specific threat or problem, but in the long term it doesn’t work, because it leads us inevitable to the next war. All war does is create the conditions that result in the next war. All war does is sow the seeds for the next war.

I guess I’ve said that in enough different ways now.