I realize this makes it look as though I’m taking the threat lightly, but I think a better description is I am putting the possibility of a true threat at a very low possibility, say, 5%. I tend to go the game-theory route when trying to rationalize my decisions, at least for my own mind. I suppose that might equate with taking things lightly. Regardless, I hope you’re all wrong too, and not just to say “told you so”. (Of course, hope is not a strategy – but true diplomacy is – not that I think the left would do any better here – it really sucks not being able to identify with either party).

I understand I did not live through the hostage crisis or the cold war, but I try to draw on what I’ve read from older folks on all sides of the political spectrum to form my opinions. I think being detached from certain events might add valuable insight at times since decisions/supsicions are not based on prior emotions. And, yes, at times it means I’m naive. I’ll freely admit that that is a possibility in this case.

Just because we strenuously disagree with you doesn’t mean we don’t respect your right to strenuously disagree with us. I take the Iranian threat very, very seriously…maybe I’m wrong (in fact, I hope I am).

You can keep posting as long as you like on this and any topic, and I hope you will…

I’ve already argued why I don’t believe the “wiping nations off the map” comment is even translated correctly. The context of the speech shows they want to “wipe the nation off the map” in the same way the USSR was wiped off the map. I am not too young to remember that no nukes were dropped during the fall of the Soviet Empire. Sure, it was tense, but cooler heads prevailed. Making the environment tense again is no way to start a diplomatic discussion. If you want a repeat of the Cold War, go ahead and applaud the president and other leaders for being unnerved when they really ought to be giving people other bargaining chips. There is no reason why the bargaining chips in the world of international politics should center around who has or does not have a nuke. Iran should not feel pressured to get a nuke. This is the root cause of the problem, not Iran wanting one.

I have not seen Ahmadinejad specifically call us the Great Satan. It’s not even in the ADL site I linked to earlier. In fact, there are very few quotes there that should cause us to stir. I’m sure there are just as many quotes that could be construed as hostile to the Iranians they have on a bulletin board somewhere as well too, especially when being translated.

And, of course, Knemon parses my quotes to make it look like I love Iran or something.

I’ll go ahead and clear the air here. My main purpose in this discussion was to show that I think Cole was correct in that the Iranian threat is far less than everyone is making it out to be. I do not think the Iranian regime treats their people all that well, but I don’t believe it is any of our business how they treat them (less gross human rights violations, which, it could be argued that that is a great reason to take out Saddam, which, I would have agreed with if that was how it was sold, but it was not). I feel that all this talk of protecting Israel when I do not believe they have been overtly threatened (and I’ve shown why I think that, mainly, that it would be an terrible tactical error on Iran’s part and they are not stupid enough to do this, which is very debatable, and I’m glad to have been challenged on that point). I guess I’ll stop talking now though as you’ve put the young child in his place.

I don’t blame Iran for wanting nukes, either as bargaining chips or as weapons. I’m not surprised by that at all. But the reality is that not all countries are alike, and I’m not going to trust nukes in the hands of people who are our sworn enemies, and I’m certainly not going to trust them just because you claim, absent any evidence, that there’s no reason to worry when they talk about wiping nations off the map. You’re too young to remember the Iranian hostage crisis or much of the Cold War. I’m not. There’s some very hard reasons why you should be unnerved by the idea of the Iranians getting the bomb. And it’s no coincidence that many European leaders are unnerved by it. Or are they all revolting too?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060320-7.html

Money quote:
But now that I’m on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course — (applause) — the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That’s a threat, a serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel, and — (applause.)

At any rate, our objective is to solve this issue diplomatically. And so our message must be a united message, a message from not only the United States, but also Great Britain and France and Germany, as well as Russia, hopefully, and China, in order to say, loud and clear to the Iranians, this is unacceptable behavior. Your desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.

And so, to answer your question, I take a practical view of doing the job you want me to do — which is how do we defeat an enemy that still wants to hurt us; and how do we deal with threats before they fully materialize; what do we do to protect us from harm? That’s my job. And that job came home on September the 11th, for me — loud and clear. And I think about my job of protecting you every day — every single day of the presidency, I’m concerned about the safety of the American people.

-End

And I think this is where our differences of opinion come into play. I find this portion of the speech revolting. I’m sure there are many of you who think he’s a great president because of this portion of the speech. They have not convinced me that diplomacy is even an option. Are we ever going to let a nation that doesn’t have nuclear weapons have them? Why are we allowed to keep them or replace the ones that are no longer operational with new ones? So we have all the bargaining chips? Can you not see why this might bother other countries? I just don’t understand how some people are surprised that some countries might not be ok with this arrangement.

“… it is not so much different than us talking about evil-doers and haters of freedom.”

“I see no danger in assuming the Iranian regime is smart.”

You got it bad …

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/043006.htm#050406

They mention both the Hitchens/Cole deal as well as the very topic of whether or not the Iranian regime is smart and translation issues as well.

And that’s not even taking into consideration Ahmadinejad’s more messianic, apocalyptic references.