AmericanPapist Comments
Just a pedantic note, you don't _cut_ bread with a butter knife.
Bread knifes are actually wickedly sharp serrated things that are designed to make multiple tiny cuts via the points on the blade. A good bread knife will take off a finger tip as easily as cut a loaf. Probably easier in fact.
A butter knife is merely used for spreading and shouldn't even break your skin if drawn along it. You're more likely to be harmed by a paper cut than a butter knife.
Maybe I shouldn't write posts when hungry. :)
Bread knife to butter knife certainly changes the metaphor a bit. Although it does add some interest to the term "Spread 'em!"
How much do you really need to know about Iran to know that their development of nuclear weapons would be a very bad thing?
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would a country with huge oil reserves need to develop nuclear power?
I think it's wonderful when a Church leader speak out on questions of great moral concern . . . but only when he has a clue about the subject.
Condoleezza Rice only this weekend said we (US administration) doesn't have any problem with Iran and the development of nuclear energy, but we cannot accept their enrichment program. The good Cardinal isn't breaking any new ground here.
Indeed, MQ, he's not. I think he's speaking out for two reasons. One, to show that the Church isn't hostile to Islam in that we'll come to their defense in the name of humanity just like we would any body else. Even more tacitly, I think this very well be the Vatican's way of telling the U.S. to cool it on the rhetoric, which is very reminiscent of the kind of talk leading up to Iraq.
The IAEA says that if all the cards fell right for Iran, the soonest they'd be able to produce weapons is in 2009, but most estimates say it's not likely for another 3-8 years. So we have plenty of time to figure out a solution--provided the neocons want one, which, judging by recent rhetoric, they don't. Let's pray for Condi.
I agree that this is a pressing issue, especially if military intervention is sought by the U.S. prior to the end of bush's term.
That said, I don't think the Vatican normally advises on international issues of this gravity by making off-handed remarks to reporters at ecumenical gatherings.
Such comments, whether intended to or not, only serve to a) convince those against intervention that "the Church is on their side" or b) convince those for intervention that the Church is being unreasonable in its evaluation.
I dunno - that's my sense of things. Because this is such a charged and important question I think clear teaching is needed. Sound bites sadly tend to miss their original aim in this kind of atmosphere....
Then of course there's the little details of Iran's official government policy that regularly calls on its citizens to chant "Death to America" and "Death to Israel", and their known ties to the proxy agents who have attacked and killed Americans over the least 25 years with impunity.
We - as a people and government - have ignored these actions and ongoing threats but we shouldn't be oblivious to them. We're not dealing with a 'normal' regime here.
Is the cardinal seriously proposing this analogy? Really?
Ok, here's one: inmates in federal prison are people, and people use knives to butter bread. Ergo, let felons in prison have knives.
Geeze.
"We're not dealing with a 'normal' regime here."
This is an excellent point. While the people of Iran might want the peace and stability that most people around the world desire, the regime itself has other intentions. The president, in many of his speeches, has referred to his primary desire to bring about the "Messiah" or 6th Imam, which depends on the bloodshed "of millions" of infidels in order to happen. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but nuclear weapons would be mighty handy in achieving this goal. For some reason, the world wants to dismiss this as embarrassing "religious talk". Why don't we just take him at his word? I believe that is what the neocons are doing...
The neocons are playing right into Ahmadinejad's hands by their bluster. They're effectively giving this guy legitimacy. That's not to say that Iran's pursuance of nuclear weapons isn't something to be concerned about. But no one in the Middle East outside of Syria and possibly Iraq wants to see a nuclear Iran, and if we would only wise up, we can use this to our advantage. Furthermore, recent elections in Iran went against the hard-liners, so if we simply bide time and be smart, it's quite possible that the next presidential elections can bring in someone like Khatami. But I fear that threatening war is only going to shore up nationalism inside Iran and boost support for Ahmadinejad.
Personally, I think the talk of war with Iran is a bluff, especially given how our troops are dangerously overextended and that Iran would wreak so much havoc in Iraq that the place would collapse. Nevermind the fact that I don't think the American people or Congress would go for it at all. You can only rally people around the flag once, and that didn't work out so well for the White House. Actually, what concerns me more than our government is Israel. Given the recent attack they made in Syria, if they do something unilaterally, it would all but automatically drag us into conflict. I really wish our leaders would speak with some degree of rationality on this issue.
Quick! We need to bake lots of nuclear bread!!
Lots...
Oh well, if it's all a bluff, then what are we worried about?!
A couple of points: first the US has some 2.1 million men and women in its armed forces. Only about 200,000 are in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and various ships floating about the region. That leaves us 80% of our entire armed forces for 'other contingencies'.
If we invade Iran it won't be to occupy the whole country but only those sites of interest - and we have plenty of troops for that.
As far as Iranian "moderates" I think it's important to realize that that's a relative term. Their moderates are still 'hardline' when it comes to theology and a commitment to wipe out Israel. If they develop an infrastructure to produce nuclear weapons no 'moderate' is going to unilaterally disarm to make US democrats much less the feckless "international community" (which means...what, exactly?) feel better.
Neo-cons are ex-liberal democrats who became Republicans. Most of the party are not "neo" anything but have been Conservative (either social or fiscal or both) for decades. It's not prima facie proven that going to war post 9/11 is a 'neo-con plot'. Dreaming that all the world's problems and all the dangerous men and their ambitions are products of "neo-con conspirators" and smoke and mirrors may make people FEEL GOOD, but it's patently false. We don't control the world - we INFLUENCE it but influence is not the same thing as control. Evil men and their evil ambitions will continue to exist irrespective of who sits in the White House and which group controls our domestic political scene.
Finally, from a non-proliferation standpoint - which has LONG been a dogma for Democrats who don't even want the US to design and deploy upgraded nuclear weapons - allowing Iran's regime to continue their program is fraught with danger. Once they go nuclear there will be a flurry of arms races around the globe for others to match them. The more nations that have nukes and the more nuke facilities the higher the risk for accidents and military use of nukes. That's a "bad thing".
Detering nations from joining the nuke club is a "good thing". That ought to be obvious for both sides of the domestic political aisle. Unfortunately we've arrived at the point of insanity where anything Bush is in favor of automatically is "bad" and "a neo-con trick" to be rejected outright by the Left.
Bush taking measures to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is undeniably laudable. Where he's crossing the line is threatening war (which I still believe is a bluff given there's no support for it). What purpose is it serving other than to bolster the image of Ahmadinejad among his own people? Norman Podhoretz, whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has compared Ahmadinejad to Hitler. Norman needs a history lesson, apparently.
Even if we don't occupy the whole country, Iran is going to throw their 2+ million forces at our soldiers. I'm not really thrilled with the idea of our soldiers being killed or wounded over a threat that's not imminent. And that's not even to mention the expanded chaos that would result in Iraq. Furthermore, as the Washington Post reports today, oil prices would skyrocket and have untold effects on the economy.
The hardline isn't working, but we refuse to take a softer approach. We relaxed a bit on North Korea, who's leader is much more evil than Iran's, and they've agreed to start dismantling their nuclear program. It's ridiculous that we haven't had diplomatic relations with Iran for nearly 30 years now. It's easy to talk to friends, but friends aren't the ones who cause problems. Iran assisted operations in Afghanistan and ensuring some measure of stability there. They've made overtures to the U.S. to have better relation, even after the Axis of Evil speech, but got no response. There's absolutely no pragmatism in the administration, and if there is, it's on the sidelines. Any sort of rational being, be that person liberal or conservative, understands that when something isn't working, you try a different approach.
Commenting by HaloScan
