Iran: What's the Liberals plan?

[IamDavid]

Do they have one or is it gonna be the opposite whatever Bush says? Like Iraq.
Iran seems much more of a threat then Iraq was so what are our great liberal thinkers saying we should do about them?

 

[DZip]

Ignore the problem until they do something on American soil...then blame Bush for not taking care of it when he invaded Iraq.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Do they have one or is it gonna be the opposite whatever Bush says?

Considering what Bush is likely to say, probably.

 

[IamDavid]

Serious guys. I just want to know.. The republicans do the exact same thing by waiting to see what the other one says then take the opposite. It drives me nuts.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: IamDavid
Do they have one or is it gonna be the opposite whatever Bush says? Like Iraq.
Iran seems much more of a threat then Iraq was so what are our great liberal thinkers saying we should do about them?

Unfortunately, they have no plan for this issue nor any other. The Demoidiot party has seemed to adopt a policy of "Do nothing, then criticize." It worked well for them in the last election and it should work equally as well in the next. They have become the party of no plan, no ideas, no candidates, no clue and are rapidly becoming irrelevant. It is a shame really because what this country needs, now more than ever, is a viable, strong, loyal opposition to at least provide some checks and balances in our govermental process. The Demoidiots are failing miserably.

 

[Nitemare]

blame Bush?

 

[Zrom999]

Isn't this the nature of politics? When you are not in power, work to discredit the party in power so next time elections come around you can become the party in power.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: IamDavid
Do they have one or is it gonna be the opposite whatever Bush says? Like Iraq.
Iran seems much more of a threat then Iraq was so what are our great liberal thinkers saying we should do about them?

At the risk of being labelled a "liberal" who doesn't answer the question - but changes it - this is what I think on the subject.

The whole purpose of these plans/diplomacy/acts of violence is to attempt to "hurt" terrorists. In doing so we all hope that means we can live safer lives and in less fear. At this moment in time the focus is firmly on radical islamic terrorism - and more specifically - mostly concerns the middle-east.

If we look at countries with pro-western governments, like Saudi Arabia for example, we find that there is in many places a gulf between how the people think/feel and how the government think/feel. I would argue that the Saudi ruling royal family have adopted a pro-western approach almost exclusively because it allows them to get rich off of the oil in their country. If we look at the people of that country - who do not directly have access to the vast wealth of their rulers, and so do not have that financial bias - we see that many are very wary of western ideology, a minority even prepared to join terrorist groups and die fighting against it.

From what I've learnt through listening to interviews with these people (not just the extremists) I hear a common thread of reasoning. They see the Israel/Palestine issue as the number one reason they dislike the US. They want to resolution of this issue. Now, we can all imagine that from the average arab perspective they would like to see Israel removed and Palestine controlling the whole area - but we also know that this will not happen. However, if settlement is reached, and Palestinians can find comprimise and be happy with their lot - then this no doubt will do a lot to appease the "common" views of arab citizens.

On another note, something else that allows mistrust to flourish in the middle east is the way in which the US has conducted itself in and around that area over the last 50 years. People remember how the US used puppet dictators to further their own agenda against communism. They also remember the wars of recent. Regardless of the stance you take on the justification of these actions, it cannot be denied that for someone living through these tumultuous events - they feel insecure, dwarfed in might and untrusting of US actions and arguements. Trust needs to be formed again. IMHO this means weighing the language of diplomacy carefully (this is one of the reasons I REALLY hate the axis of evil speech) and getting serious (which it looks like we are at last) with the Israel/Palestine issue.

So, back to the original point! With regards to planning for a war with Iran - I would say are you sure they are such an imminent threat? (like Iraq was(n't)) If not then the absolute worst thing you could do in order to bring about the demise of islamic terrorism is to start another war with an arab country.

So, my solution is be prepared, monitor the situation but keep the language polite and non-offensive (at least in public), stay serious with Israel/Palestine (would 9/11 have happened if Israel/Palestine was resolved, given the popular support for Al Quaeda is due mainly to this issue?) and keep war as a very last resort - not pre-emptive unless we are certain that we're in real danger. Absolutely, definately do not start publically stating you want regime change in Iran - keep it private even if you do. The people of Iran are smart enough to have a democratically elected parliment - if they want to overthrow the religious rule - I'm sure they can find the will within themselves. You certainly can't push self-determination.

Lets not jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Cheers,

Andy

EDIT: In terms of popular support for Al Qaeda, human rights abuses and a lack of effort in taking terrorism seriously - I would say Saudi Arabia is right up there with Iran. There are plenty of Al Qaeda religious preachers in Saudi and even in the current climate of "maybe we better do something now we're having so many bombings" they are no doubt still going to be cut slack.

 

[Tom]

"Do they have one or is it gonna be the opposite whatever Bush says? Like Iraq. "

If you are equating Democrat with liberal then the premise of your question is wrong. The Democrats voted to support the action against Iraq.

Furthermore the other premise of your question, that it is up to the party not in power to come up with our country's foreign policy, is also wrong-headed. The Democrats are not doing something sinister or untoward by allowing pres. Bush the opportunity to formulate our foreign policy.

 

[yllus]

Iran has been quite content to be left alone and slowly come around to reform for the last decade or more. Don't mess everything up for them now by trying to speed the process up. Bush and his people seem to know that.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Do they have one or is it gonna be the opposite whatever Bush says? Like Iraq. "

If you are equating Democrat with liberal then the premise of your question is wrong. The Democrats voted to support the action against Iraq.

Furthermore the other premise of your question, that it is up to the party not in power to come up with our country's foreign policy, is also wrong-headed. The Democrats are not doing something sinister or untoward by allowing pres. Bush the opportunity to formulate our foreign policy.

The purpose of this thread is to bash "liberals".

 

[IamDavid]

Thanks for the nice post Fencer128. I don't believe you are a liberal; though. Democrat maybe. I agree with most of what you said except for one main thing. When is it to late? You say we should monitor the situation but t what ends? Are we to wait until they have actual Nukes? Or until they pass some nuclear material to a terrorist group? Iran unlike NK will use nuclear weapons for sure.


Dead Parrot Sketch, I SAID liberal. Not democratic.... Huge difference...
And of course its up to the current administration to make the foreign policy. I'd just like to know if the "LIBERALS" have any ideas.. Apparently not.

yllus, Your right about Iran slowly coming around.. Over the past few years more and more Iranians are wanting more. Unfortunately the ruling party is the problem. They are the ones seeking Nuclear weapons. If it wasn't for the nuke problem Iran SHOULD be left alone..

Dr Smooth. Your right in that I don't agree with liberals and love to bash them. This time though i would really like to know what they think.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: IamDavid
Thanks for the nice post Fencer128. I don't believe you are a liberal; though. Democrat maybe. I agree with most of what you said except for one main thing. When is it to late? You say we should monitor the situation but t what ends? Are we to wait until they have actual Nukes? Or until they pass some nuclear material to a terrorist group? Iran unlike NK will use nuclear weapons for sure.

That's a tough one. This is the way I see it:

You don't want a country like that with nukes - but then hipocrasy is at work in the international community because therre are those who already have nukes, and who is to say who is "right" and "just" enough to decide who should have the power of mass destruction? As a note - we (the nuclear club) should be actively involved in reducing nuclear stockpiles through treaties, as well as doing our damnedest to avoid actual testing. Failure to do so sends the wrong message to those wishing to develop nuclear weapons.

Obviously we don't want Iran to have such weapons - so given the above the best (and only way IMHO) to proceeed is by garnering a large international concensus. This can only really be achieved by winning over citizens as well as/instead of governments. The time is right to push this when irefutable/damning evidence/intelligence can be gathered and presented (not just by the US) that helps to galvanise public opinion. This is a touchy issue after how Powell's "evidence" went down at the UNSC - but this situation is exactly th reason we should have a UNSC IMHO. I don't agree that the standard of evidence produced by Powell recently was of the quality I'm pushing for here. I would want documents/photos/etc. the real first hand stuff. The arguement has always been "if we present the really damning stuff then spooks/sources will be compromised". I don't buy that anymore. Here's why:

- IMHO when the situation gets desperate enough that you want to blow things and people up - the time for this kind of intelligence gathering is over.

- It may be hard, but new spies/sources can be and would have to be found (it's worked up until now) if needed to replace the agents compromised by producing this intelligence.

- Sacrifices have to be made when such important decisions really have to be taken.

So, if the situation's that bad - prove it when you have to - but don't hold back the horses with your evidence (let's face it if the evidence doesn't convince then the attack will happen unilaterally anyway - as it is so critical - so what is there to lose?).

Then if all the stops have been pulled out and the difficult decision has to be taken - I for one won't be arguing against it.

Cheers,

Andy

ps - How would you define a "liberal"? - I just wonder due to the fact you regard me as more of a democrat (I'm British so I'm a little lost).

EDIT: Just realised I hadn't summised. In the context of the hypothetical situation involving Iran, its current government and damning evidence of a desire, capability and effort to produce nuclear weapons - any military action to eliminate sites where nuclear weapon research is occuring should happen before nukes are fully developed and with maximum effort to make it an international affair (in line with my comments above).

 

[Zebo]

Want peace get nukes. We even have one of ours designated as the "peacekeeper". Read about "just war theory" and you'll understand. Don't quite understand what the fear is. We'll yes I do but many are to stupid to see it.

 

[sandorski]

Since many are still waiting for the justificaction for the Iraq war, I suspect few find a conflict with Iran justified. There are better ways to combat terrorism than to perpetuate the conditions that lead to terrorism.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Since many are still waiting for the justificaction for the Iraq war, I suspect few find a conflict with Iran justified. There are better ways to combat terrorism than to perpetuate the conditions that lead to terrorism.

And that is question, what is the better way?

 

[Moonbeam]

The best way to handle Iran and Islamic terrorism is for the US to convert to Islam faster. It is a better religion, the last and most up to date of the three, makes better sense, and is the final word on religion. It's also the fastest growing religion and Americans like winners.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: IamDavid
Do they have one or is it gonna be the opposite whatever Bush says? Like Iraq.
Iran seems much more of a threat then Iraq was so what are our great liberal thinkers saying we should do about them?

I'd say join them, make them our friend. Maybe even share our corn with them and their dislike for the Suni majority in Iraq... help them invade Iraq if the Iraqi don't quit messing about.. or maybe adopt Islam as the National Religion of one of our protectored states.. maybe Guam... yeah.. Guam would be Muslim..

 

[Moonbeam]

Guam? But, but....

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Guam? But, but....

I started at the top then saw your post before I could co-ordinate an answer.. sorry..
Who should we choose to be muslim?

 

[Moonbeam]

We can start with Guam and next Hawaii then California. The South will bring up the rear, as usual.

 

[glugglug]

War with Iran would be completely unjustified at this point, just as the war with Iraq was.
But with George War Bush at the helm, you can count on another war anyways.

 

[JellyBaby]

The South will bring up the rear, as usual.

*snicker*

Liberals tend to prefer diplomatic solutions, even shallow not-likely-to-endure pacts. In the case of Iran I suppose we want them to disarm and renounce terrorism as applicable. Embracing representative governance would go a long way toward making them economically viable and that's always in the best interests of the West.

No matter who has the button on the trigger, nothing will happen until there is a political opportunity to act. Political opportunity + economic opportunity all but guarantees intervention. Basically same story with N. Korea and most other Evil-doers.

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: glugglug
War with Iran would be completely unjustified at this point, just as the war with Iraq was.
But with George War Bush at the helm, you can count on another war anyways.

So whats just? After they get nukes and use them?

 

[JellyBaby]

But with George War Bush at the helm, you can count on another war anyways.

You won't see anything until he's re-elected, barring a major Internation Incident of course. I think the Elite have a "one war per term" rule...more than that causes too much uncertainty.