Mullah Madness

My question is what do you propose in place of diplomacy? Diplomacy works when both sides want resolution, or when one or both sides are stalling for time. The world is in the latter with Iran, and Iran also needs it that way. For Iran, it needs the time to develop a nuke so it can tell the US to screw off, and overtake Saudi Arabia as the Middle East power. We need it because we have no choice. We cannot confront Iran because we're already overextended in Iraq. Furthermore, and invasion of Iran would be a disaster. Suppose we had the troops, there is no doubt that the battle would be quick, but winning that peace would make Iraq look easy. Also, the price of oil would go through the roof. Remember, when we went into Iraq, OPEC said they would overproduce to handle the Iraqi loss. With Iraq off-line and Iran in the middle of a war, oil prices soar, and stay high for years (Iran would undoubtedly destroy the wells and pipe lines, and they would make great targets for Inrani insurgents). So we're forced to play for time. Our only hope is that the pro-democracy forces in Iran somehow speed up their bid for power. Its a race that we'll lose. Ultimately, Iran will have the bomb. The response from the right will be that it was inevitable that the nuclear club would expand so deal with it. I like McLeiberman's solution, just bomb the nuclear sites and tell Iran that they can't play. It would inflame anti-US feelings and set back the pro-democracy movement, but that's a great trade for our security. It would also make the US nuke lobby cry foul, and they're big GOP donors, but again, a great trade. Iran realized long ago that the America says one thing and does another. The talk tough in public and roll-over in private policy has been the stalwart US policy since Reagan. Thus, it's no surprise that we got outmanuvered here. They know we need the oil. This was part of the flaw with nation-building in the Middle East. It would take decades for the affects of a strong, stable Iraqi democracy to spread. In the meantime, we're even more involved in a perennially messed up region. It would have made much more sense to find an oil alternative for the US. It would have been cheaper, faster, and more stable. I don't say this from an environmental standpoint. I honestly don't care if we started burning coal in our cars, we need to untangle ourselves from the Middle East. What has happened is that our best threat, "we'll kick your ass" has been defanged by Iraq. Diplomacy without a stick resorts to bribery, which is what's happening. We simply cannot enforce our will upon anyone right now. N. Korea showed this and Iran listened. Iran listened when N. Korea said "we have the bomb, and we're making missiles," and the US was silent. Iran listened when it turned out that Pakistan gave N. Korea the technology, and the US was silent. This is the best time for them to make their move, and they're doing it.

Re: Mullah this

I think you're basically right but sometimes a carrot is needed with the stick. Just like with people, simply brutalizing bad guys that you have to interact with again one day and expecting good results is folly. If we could just lock up the nation of Iran and throw away the key, you may have a point but sadly...We can't, so you have to figure out ways to make them productive or, at least, non threatening members of society. The person example is a good one. A stern father with a mother who tempers the punishments with rewards or in criminal justice, the Good cop/bad cop routine are effective techniques. The problem arises when the parent/cops aren't working together and are actually undercutting each other, which is what Europe has been doing to us.

Unlike the theocratic method of gov't that most Iranians hate, there is a nationalism and a belief that if, Pakistan and Israel have the bomb, why shouldn't they? Its not an unreasonable question. If the solution to Iranian aggression lies in getting rid of the Mullahs (which i think it does) causing a nationalist backlash against the West can only undermine the real objectives.

Iran is avery different situation than Iraq. There is an educated middle class, an aware,very young/ pro Western political movement and a gov't that does rely on some sort of legitimacy outside of the sword. The sacking of Hussein sent a great message to the Mullahs and exposure to and investment from the West will hurt the regime not help it. That all being said, if Israel can figure out an effective way to go Osiraq on them....Not the worst thing in the world.

Mullah This

Please join me in a collective gasp as the news that Iran is producing the gases necessary to enrich weapons grade uranium sinks in. How could this be? I thought Europe was on the case. Haven't we been listening to international lecturing about the value of sweet talk and detente for 20 years? Funny, but that's about how long its taken Iran to get to the front door of the Nuclear Weapon Clubhouse. And now its just a matter of weeks before they learn the secret handshake.

There aren't enough megabits of memory in the world to hold all the blogs that would be necessary to catalogue the failures of international diplomatic solutions. We don't stop street crime by inviting the criminals to sit down with their neighbors to find out what the misunderstanding is. We simply stop the criminals. If you think people cannot be compared to nation states...you are deluded. There are small matters that diplomacy is very well suited to handle. But it is naivete of the highest order to not recognize the many arenas in which diplomacy is powerless.

The Europeans may as well have built the weapons for the Iranians and hand delivered them with a few billion of left over Oil for Food money. For that is the exact result of their diplomacy. The rogue nations love the talk because it provides the time necessary to accomplish their goals. While the Europeans signed and copied and collated, scheduled and rescheduled; the Mullahs built weapons. The diplomats are dupes who failed in Iran, failed in Iraq, and will fail again wherever they are given the opportunity to make deals with the power hungry.

When the world is peaceful, certainly, let the diplomats chatter to their heart's content. But when the times becomes serious, best send them to bed so the adults can put things right. Enough talk.

MNF

I'm with you. This is such a non story. Had they used the hottie latina fine but.......... How many times do I have to look at Sipowitz's ass on NYPD Blue before someone demands that they take him off the air?

Hard to see why more Dems didn't stick their neck out for Kerry.

Again we see examples of why he failed. Rather than spread the wealth to generate good will, and help others, he sat on $15mm and didn't even spend that to win. Now he wants to be a big player in Dem politics? He baffles me.


CNN.com - Dems question Kerry's campaign nest egg - Nov 18, 2004

Hard to see why more Dems didn't stick their neck out for Kerry.

Again we see examples of why he failed. Rather than spread the wealth to generate good will, and help others, he sat on $15mm and didn't even spend that to win. Now he wants to be a big player in Dem politics? He baffles me.


CNN.com - Dems question Kerry's campaign nest egg - Nov 18, 2004

Maybe I'm not as old as I thought

This MNF controversy with the Nicolette Sheridan in a towel goes right by me. I just don't get it. I've seen worse on a Friends episode, and the scantily dressed cheerleaders the MNF cameras linger on show much more skin. Now Tony Dungy feels like it was racially offensive http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1925333 I guess the good news is that I'm not as old and square as I thought.

Fertility and Abortion

Why haven't the pro-lifers gone after fertility treatments that produce unused embryos? With so much attention paid to ending abortion and stemcell research, why isn't there more of an uproar over these "cast-offs?" Not only are they are ultimately destroyed, but insurance covers the procedure. With the pro-lifers wanting to restrict where fed dollars can go, this also seems like a viable target. Is this an under the radar issue, or is it a loser for the pro-lifers due to go forth and multiply and or who want's to come out and tell a husband and wife you're against them having a baby. In any case I think the pro-lifers are in a jam here. Any thoughts?

Social Security

Quick question for our smart hydrabloggers. This CNN article about Social Security Privatization (I'm pro) says that Bush's plan will cost about $3 trillion, but then goes on to say that the 75 year shortfall is $3.7 trillion. My understanding of Bush's number is that its a short term hit, but if the long term cost is $3.7 trillion, I have to question my stance here. Not enough long term benefit to offset the short term hit. If the $3 trln is over the same span as the $3.7 that's also different. Can either of you shed some light on this?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/social.security.ap/index.html

Predictions

Part of the fun of having a blog is putting things down for prosperity. Given that, here are some predictions.

First: Clarence Thomas will be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Second: Roe v. Wade will fall within the next 6 years.
Third: Gay Marriage Amendments will pass in every state attempted.
Finally: I restate that a Democrat will win in 2008.

So there you have it. Check back, and feel free to ridicule me later.

Gay Marriage is done

Looking at the state initiatives, the most striking is the massive support for Gay Marriage Amendments. Looking at the results and the polling, I now believe that this debate is functionally over. The plan for denying homosexuals the ability to marry AND any type of legal relationship is obvious. Polls show that (in round numbers) 30% of Americans support the right of homosexuals to marry, 33% want to bar any type of recognition (marriage and civil unions, contracts, etc) and 36% support defining marriage as between a man and woman, but are ok with civil unions. So here it looks like what should pass any vote is simply defining marriage as between a man and woman. However, what passes is the complete denial of rights. Why? Look at the pro-marriage types. Some part of the 33% are really on the fence, so take it down to 30%. Of that, how many are passionate enough to really fight for it? Spend money, speak vocally, take personal risk to secure this right, not many. But look at the complete denial team. Of the 33% how many are on the fence? None. How many are willing to really fight this fight, spend money, be vocal, take personal risk, almost all. So one camp is split, and mostly meek, the other is united and passionate. Stopping there, who wins the fight for the middle 36%? No brainer. But take a look at the middle 36%. More of them probably lean towards total denial than total rights. How many of them really care? Not many. If pressed in a vote to vote for total denial, most will probably shrug and vote for it. Thinking, "close, but not perfect." The thing is, the social conservatives figured out how to get the 36%ers to vote their way. By tagging state amendments as "Amendment X: Defines marriage as between one man and one woman." The outcome is never in doubt. While the fine print may say "and deny any legal recognition to contracts or civil unions" not many will get that far. So a big chunk of the middle votes for it, thinking it mimics their views. Those that take the time to read it, some of them will go ahead and vote for it anyway. Their catchphrase is clearer, and the pro-gay marriage folks need to educate why its not what it says. This is always a losing proposition in elections. Restrictive gay marriage amendments will pass in most, if not all states. Keep in mind, even CA passes some anti-liberal laws (immigration, 3 strikes, etc). Regardless, all you need is 3/4 of the states to pass one and a federal amendment is inevitable. Once its a part of state law, it would take nothing to get voters to go ahead an vote for a national amendment as they already (overwhelmingly, this time at least) supported it at the state level. In congress, how many legislators would fall on their sword for this issue, given the inevitability of it, not enough. The best news for the social conservatives, is that this process will take about a decade, giving them lots of election year life for this wedge issue. Its a false bill of goods, but its inevitable.

The World is Watching

Some good points Bill, I mean StalinMalone. Damn. Never mind.


Some holes though. You cannot judge the presses coverage without the context of the least press friendly administration in recent history. The White House and the RNC have released so little information and have actually run attack ads (Press releases) on journalists that that cover the race that an anomosity and mistrust built up along the way. Has there been one unscripted press conference in 4 years? Did the camapign really demand that a loyalty oath be signed before entering Bush/Cheney events?

I think its absurd to seperate the Swift boat ads from the White House. Make the argument that they were effective or even deserved but they certainly had Rove's fingerprints all over them.

I was one of the few people in NYC that wasn't despondent yesterday, largely for my McLieberman foreign policy reasons. I am a lot less happy today. I am not sure that the unknown comics predication of an ultra conservative Court is written in stone but what bothers me even more was the "Moral Values" aspect. Given that there wer eleven states with ballots stripping even civil union protection for gay couples moral values was, at best partially and at worst wholly an appeal, to bigotry.

Not going to be looked at as one of our nations finer moments. I don't mean this as a Christian bashing rant. I am not the guy who disaparges religion in the red states while sipping my merlot. I believe that by a long shot, religion is a force for good in this nation but, if Rove's method to reach born again evangelicals was to demonize homosexuals and the numbers bear out that it worked, I feel furthur away from the blue states than i have in a long time.

McLieberman

The World Was Watching

Little was said about what was a major gaff by John Kerry; "The world will be watching", he informed us. Since when do Americans seek the approval of others when we make choices for ourselves? How can a man running for president be so tone deaf to the proud patriotism that has made his country the shining city on a hill? The only reason Mr. Kerry's statement didn't turn this election into a rout was that it was ignored by the media. Many will wonder how this election could have even been close for a wartime incumbent. Here's a start; a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs showed that Kerry received more favorable media coverage than any candidate in 20 years. www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=176

President Bush did extremely well when one looks at the disparity of critical press coverage. The main attack on Kerry was waged by the private citizen Swift Boat Vets. The main attack on the president was carried out by CBS. Had the story not been fabricated, the attack may well have been decisive. But isn't it the job of the press to scrutinize both candidates? I am heartened by the ability of the majority of Americans to see through the non-bias claims of the media and judge the candidates with their own senses. Then again, when you attempt to sway an American with European peer pressure you make his choice much easier.

It seems we should pay more attention to what MCLieberman has to say, he certainly called this race.

swings

As we get closer to the election, I feel less confident in Kerry. I believe that Biush has done a relatively poor, if not as bad as many say, job of follow up in Iraq and Afganistan but Kerry's entiure record is that of a dove and these are not dove times. Will Kerry prosecute the war in Iraq? Does he believe in American exceptionalism? Does he saee freedom as a basic right that we should be helping achieve. My guess is that the answer to all of these questions is no.

Bush believs in these things but lacks the qualities in a leader needed to carry them out. Is he capable of recognizing and correcting errors along the way? Will he stand on principle over loyalty even if its not to his advantage? Is he deft enough to match his actions with words that appeal to those who are inclined against him? Does he even mean to reach out to them? My guess on these is no as well. Where is Joe Biden when we need him?